4 More Years!

[onthebottom]

I have to say I went into Tuesday a bit depressed because I was sure that Kerry would win this election. I fell into the assumption trap, that many did, in assuming that new voters would be Kerry voters. This obviously was not the case. With the President wining a popular vote by a substantial margin in an election with a massive turnout, this is the best mandate the POTUS could ask for in such a divided country.

When you consider that the Republicans have increased their control of the Senate (by 3-4 seats) and House, and have unseated Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader from South Dakota you can only characterize this as a perfect storm for the Republicans!

Bbking, I’ll be happy to offer deep-fried, Cajun, teriyaki or grilled crow whenever you’re ready for it.

DQ, let me know if you need any help with boxes for your move.

Now, about the Patriot Act, Tax Reform, Social Security Privatization and the Supreme Court…

But seriously, I hope the POTUS uses this victory as an opportunity to reach across the isle and find some common ground to work for the American people.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Don't ever question my patriotism.

Never have never will. But don't I remember all sorts of silly posts about you leaving if Bush won?

OTB

[langeweile]

OTB
Take it easy..it is over the pont is made.

"Can we just all get along" (Rodney King)

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
Cajun will be fine :p

I actually was expecting a much larger turnout than what showed up. It's going to be awhile before I get a sense of what happened here - I have never seen an election in Canada or the States where the exit polls were so dead wrong. I think the only State that was right was Penn. and even there the actual # was lower than the predicted #. Well you know the old saying - If it looks to good to be true it most likely is - I really should have kept that in mind.


bbk

Cajun it is - I'll let you know next time I'm in YYZ, I'll pay since you’re being such a good sport!

Large turnout, but much more balanced. I think everyone assumed, as I did, that the net new voters would be young and black - many were white and Christian.

These should be an amazing 4 years, Bush finally has a mandate AND a more powerful legislature to work with. Rove will be crowned the king of all politics after this.

OTB

[CH812]

Something about the way election day went just doesnt make sense to me........Regardless of how uneducated rural America is i dont think they could so overwhelmingly elect Bush by such a majority.......I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but i have some serious skeptisism about these electronic voting machines that were used in the key battleground states.... Did anyone else here know that the company that manufacture's these machines is a major campaign contributor for the Republican party? thats kind of shady in my opinion......

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by langeweile
OTB
Take it easy..it is over the pont is made.

"Can we just all get along" (Rodney King)

Count the threads on F 911 and get back to me. I reserve the right to express my opinion, feel free not to read my threads (rare) or posts if you're not interested.

OTB

[langeweile]

Originally posted by CH812
Something about the way election day went just doesnt make sense to me........Regardless of how uneducated rural America is i dont think they could so overwhelmingly elect Bush by such a majority.......I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but i have some serious skeptisism about these electronic voting machines that were used in the key battleground states.... Did anyone else here know that the company that manufacture's these machines is a major campaign contributor for the Republican party? thats kind of shady in my opinion......

Somebody PLEASE make it stop...PLEASE

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by CH812
Something about the way election day went just doesnt make sense to me........Regardless of how uneducated rural America is i dont think they could so overwhelmingly elect Bush by such a majority.......I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but i have some serious skeptisism about these electronic voting machines that were used in the key battleground states.... Did anyone else here know that the company that manufacture's these machines is a major campaign contributor for the Republican party? thats kind of shady in my opinion......

LOL, Diebold - large ATM manufacture. This is the type of elitism that keeps the Democrats in the losers column.

OTB

[langeweile]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Count the threads on F 911 and get back to me. I reserve the right to express my opinion, feel free not to read my threads (rare) or posts if you're not interested.

OTB

RELAX
I was semi serious or semi joking which ever one you prefer.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by langeweile
RELAX
I was semi serious or semi joking which ever one you prefer.

Hey, I only got 3 hours sleep last night and had to work 12 hours today - I'm a bit off my sense of humor. Consider me relaxed now.

OTB

[Jacques_Offe]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CH812
Something about the way election day went just doesnt make sense to me........Regardless of how uneducated rural America is i dont think they could so overwhelmingly elect Bush by such a majority.......I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but i have some serious skeptisism about these electronic voting machines that were used in the key battleground states.... Did anyone else here know that the company that manufacture's these machines is a major campaign contributor for the Republican party? thats kind of shady in my opinion......

Kerry got beat fair and square. A big majority and pluality as well as won the electoral college( All that really counts).

I listened to NPR today...sad to hear grown liberals crying in their beer.

J O

[CH812]

All i know is that im scared for the future of the world right now....Bush is the true threat to world peace in my opinion

[assoholic]

..pathetic absolutely pathetic, I could understand him getting in the first time but after his dismal performance as President the fact he has been re-elected tells me all I need to know about the States. Puff out your chests while you can as your army slowly bleeds to death in Iraq, because after this idiot is through there is no telling how worse off we will all be in 4 years. He is totally devoid of anything other then his family connections. Quite frankly I now have no sympathy for the US whatsoever. If you cant recognize a incompetant lying moron after 4 years , you deserve what you get. Unfortunately your going to drag Canada down with you.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by figurehead
I'm gonna top of my celebration with a session with Selina!

It has a certain "stick it to a Liberal" ring to it.

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by figurehead
I'm gonna top of my celebration with a session with Selina!
ROTFLMAO!!! Too funny!

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by CH812
All i know is that im scared for the future of the world right now....Bush is the true threat to world peace in my opinion

As the Sydney Morning paper said today "It's the American People Stupid". They've spoken.

I think if you're planning to attack the US then yes, Bush is indeed dangerous.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Jacques_Offe
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CH812
[B]

I listened to NPR today...sad to hear grown liberals crying in their beer.

J O

Music to my ears, can't wait to listen to NPR tomorrow.

OTB

[Peeping Tom]

The SC appointments are interesting. Maybe after they are done we can finally get a ruling on the RKBA.

[CH812]

OTB:

Well we all know now the Iraq had no link to 9/11 and al-quaeda but tell the 100,000 innocent iraqi civilians that lost their lives that they were trying to attack the US

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by CH812
OTB:

Well we all know now the Iraq had no link to 9/11 and al-quaeda but tell the 100,000 innocent iraqi civilians that lost their lives that they were trying to attack the US

I've had this discussion so many times I'm tiered of it, tell the 35,000 kids that were dieing EVERY year from sanctions that it was better to leave Saddam in power. Tell the relatives of the people being dug up from mass graves that it would be better to have Saddam in power. Tell the Kurds that it would have been better to let Saddam out of the sanctions box to rearm himself and attack his neighbors and citizens.

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I think if you're planning to attack the US then yes, Bush is indeed dangerous.

OTB
Ok ok Bush won and the American people have spoken and clearly made their decision. But let's not get carried away. "Bush is dangerous"? Please :rolleyes: ... to whom? Suicide terrorists? Or Arab civilians? I am sure that the fanatical terrorists are quaking in their boots.

No matter who became the President, terrorism continues to be an equal threat. But it sure does become a great "propaganda" tool.


Originally posted by onthebottom
... Tell the relatives of the people being dug up from mass graves that it would be better to have Saddam in power. Tell the Kurds that it would have been better to let Saddam out of the sanctions box to rearm himself and attack his neighbors and citizens.

OTB
Oh please ... the US made Saddam who he was all in the name of "business", does the name Rumsfeld mean anything? Reagan looked the other way when the Kurds were gassed. Only when he threatened US access to Kuwaiti oil and the Saudi Royal family started to worry did the US care ... so please spare us the BS.

[assoholic]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I've had this discussion so many times I'm tiered of it, tell the 35,000 kids that were dieing EVERY year from sanctions that it was better to leave Saddam in power. Tell the relatives of the people being dug up from mass graves that it would be better to have Saddam in power. Tell the Kurds that it would have been better to let Saddam out of the sanctions box to rearm himself and attack his neighbors and citizens.

OTB

..what kind of idiotic statement is that ?, who put the sanctions on in the first place, get some more sleep.

[Drunken Master]

How classy of OTB to open up his own thread to gloat.

Funny, Iraq never attacked the US, that I can remember. Let's keep our sophistries straight, shall we?

On second thought, nevermind. I hope - as I would for any candidate - that Bush will find the wisdom to govern well.

The end.

[CH812]

OTB:

i think you better check your numbers 35,000 kids dying every day in Iraq due to sanctions? your talking about 12 000 000 kids a year in a country of 60 000 000..... get your facts straight buddy

[Asterix]

Originally posted by CH812
OTB:

i think you better check your numbers 35,000 kids dying every day in Iraq due to sanctions? your talking about 12 000 000 kids a year in a country of 60 000 000..... get your facts straight buddy

C'mon. you can do better than that. OTB is not goofy enough to suggest that many died a day, and either didn't post it that way or has since corrected it.

To your original post, I think your suggestion of a conspiracy in the states with electronic voting a bit much. I thought from last week that dubya would win by around 2 points, and despite bbk's assertion (yah, I'm still rubbing your nose in it), I didn't see any final weekend shift to the challenger. If anything it seemed to be going back Bush's way.

Still, it did make me wonder about future elections. Does anyone here really feel comfortable with the notion of electronic voting? If there is a paper trail as a backup fine. Otherwise, I would worry such a system would be open to tampering, if not simple glitches, that could not be traced.

[galt]

Originally posted by assoholic
Quite frankly I now have no sympathy for the US whatsoever. If you cant recognize a incompetant lying moron after 4 years , you deserve what you get. Unfortunately your going to drag Canada down with you.


hmmm, sort of like the incompetant lying moron that just left the Prime Minister's office...The one who Canadians elected for three straight majorities and sat as he spoke to imaginary homeless people and openly stole from us with contempt. Me thinks you should take a good hard look behind your pointed finger

[CH812]

True there is corruption & lies in every political system in the world but there is a big difference when your lies are responsible for the deaths of 100,000 innocent iraqi's and almost 1300 american troops

[clipper]

Apparently the Republicans got the gay-hating Christians out in force, wile the Democrats were unable to deliver the "youth vote".

Participation of young voters was a miserable 17% . If there is a draft, they'll be justifiably wearing it.

I guess they couldn't get "excited" about two old guys dukng it out. Maybe when they are "down on the killing floor" they'll wake up.

In the 70s Canada benefitted from draft-dodgers coming north.
I hope we send these ones back! Truly pathetic. Doesn't bode at all well for US democracy. Even Timothy Leary was more tuned in than these clowns.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by clipper

Participation of young voters was a miserable 17% . If there is a draft, they'll be justifiably wearing it.

I guess they couldn't get "excited" about two old guys dukng it out. Maybe when they are "down on the killing floor" they'll wake up.



Well, I see it didn't take long for compassionate conservatism to show up.

[CH812]

Bush will most certainly have to legislate a draft especially if he plans to strike more pre-emptive attacks against other countries in his "axis of evil" (Iran and N. Korea)

[CH812]

Its really funny how stupid rural America is.....your country is in a war based on lies that has already uneccessary killed 1300 troops and your economy is in the dumps but you decided your vote on gay marriage and abortion???

[Asterix]

Originally posted by CH812
Its really funny how stupid rural America is.....your country is in a war based on lies that has already uneccessary killed 1300 troops and your economy is in the dumps but you decided your vote on gay marriage and abortion???

Are you capable of making a sensible post, or are you just looking for attention and seeing how many fires you can start? I don't think anybody suggests the election swung on gay marraige or abortion.

[CH812]

Read the exit poles Axterix: 80% of people who voted for Bush did so because they say moral issues were their main issue when casting their ballot.

[Peeping Tom]

I suggest it did - it brought out enraged single issue voters, who then voted for Bush. See my thread.


Originally posted by Asterix
I don't think anybody suggests the election swung on gay marraige or abortion.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Peeping Tom
I suggest it did - it brought out enraged single issue voters, who then voted for Bush. See my thread.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. Considering the number of problems facing this country, I guess I would have hoped most people based their decision for president on character, the economy, education for their kids, health care, the war in Iraq, or what I thought had swung it, who they believed would better protect the country.Silly me.

If the vote was determined by gay marriage and abortion, I feel sadder about this election than I did before.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
I think you managed to hit the nail on the head despite Astriks comments. CNN all day has been saying that the vote went heavily to social issues even though the polls before the election showed that it was 4th on the list of concerns. Rev. Falwell announced today that 15 million Evangelical voted for Bush. Ok I'm done - I'm quoting a twit like Fawell, I'm grasping for straws.


bbk


how in hell did the new registrations not be in Kerry's favour - lost and confused in High Park

BBK - you and I should form the High Park Depressed Democrats-In-Spirit Support Group. Or HPDDISSG for short.

[danmand]

Originally posted by CH812
Bush will most certainly have to legislate a draft especially if he plans to strike more pre-emptive attacks against other countries in his "axis of evil" (Iran and N. Korea)

During the last few months, the US has delivered long range fighter bombers and 500 bunker buster bombs to Israel. A little favour may be called.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
BBK - you and I should form the High Park Depressed Democrats-In-Spirit Support Group. Or HPDDISSG for short.

If you accept honorary members from other states let me know. Also interesting is how Kerry did not do nearly as well with black voters as Clinton and even Gore. If anyone has a link to see how other minorities voted I"d like to see it.

[Kathleen]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I have to say I went into Tuesday a bit depressed because I was sure that Kerry would win this election.

OTB - Like you, I was expecting a Kerry win. Everyday, a new celebrity was speaking out in favor of Kerry. Hrs before the polls opened, Moore had posted a goodbye GB speech on his site. Then during the election, Kerry's crew seemed way positive.

But as you noted, not only winning, but knocking out Daschle and increasing control was amazing. I am impressed. I also liked the class shown by John Kerry in all of this. He handled the defeat well.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Kathleen
I also liked the class shown by John Kerry in all of this. He handled the defeat well.

Yep, he was gracious in defeat, and hopefully this will help the two sides work together. Lord knows there are enough problems.

Btw, thanks for getting rid of the shaking Bush. I was starting to get dizzy.

[gala]

So, now that Bush has won, America can get back to cracking down on immoral things like drugs and prostitution, teaching creationism in school, and banning condoms.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by gala
So, now that Bush has won, America can get back to cracking down on immoral things like drugs and prostitution, teaching creationism in school, and banning condoms.

Well, you've gotta go with your strengths.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by assoholic
..what kind of idiotic statement is that ?, who put the sanctions on in the first place, get some more sleep.

The UNSC.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by CH812
OTB:

i think you better check your numbers 35,000 kids dying every day in Iraq due to sanctions? your talking about 12 000 000 kids a year in a country of 60 000 000..... get your facts straight buddy

I meant 35,000 kids (under the age of 10) were dieing every YEAR. My mistake, logic stands.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by clipper
Apparently the Republicans got the gay-hating Christians out in force, wile the Democrats were unable to deliver the "youth vote".

Participation of young voters was a miserable 17% . If there is a draft, they'll be justifiably wearing it.

I guess they couldn't get "excited" about two old guys dukng it out. Maybe when they are "down on the killing floor" they'll wake up.

In the 70s Canada benefitted from draft-dodgers coming north.
I hope we send these ones back! Truly pathetic. Doesn't bode at all well for US democracy. Even Timothy Leary was more tuned in than these clowns.

Was surprising, I guess Kerry had a hard time motivating those who didn’t hate bush. There will NEVER be a draft (and you can quote me on that).

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by CH812
Its really funny how stupid rural America is.....your country is in a war based on lies that has already uneccessary killed 1300 troops and your economy is in the dumps but you decided your vote on gay marriage and abortion???

Unless you're Tom Daschle - LOL

This is the condescending attitude that keep the Democrats in the losers column. Silly Liberals.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
You just don't understand how powerful a force
religious beliefs are in the US. We were founded
by peoples that were persecuted for their beliefs.
That was in 1621. A page of history explains everything.

Religious values have always dominated my culture.
Read deTouqueville and you will begin to understand.
No other country in the West is so rooted to its religious values,
for better or worse.

Very true, the Economist did an excellent series of articles called Exceptional America (not meaning better, just different) and one of them focused on how much more religious Americans are than their counterparts in Europe.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Asterix
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Considering the number of problems facing this country, I guess I would have hoped most people based their decision for president on character, the economy, education for their kids, health care, the war in Iraq, or what I thought had swung it, who they believed would better protect the country.Silly me.

If the vote was determined by gay marriage and abortion, I feel sadder about this election than I did before.

I think it's too simplistic to say it was about abortion or gay marriage but social issues and character did play a big role. At the end of the day each party worked to get its continuants out and the Republicans were able to turn out the Conservative Christians that Karl Rove has often said stayed home in 2000.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Kathleen
OTB - Like you, I was expecting a Kerry win. Everyday, a new celebrity was speaking out in favor of Kerry. Hrs before the polls opened, Moore had posted a goodbye GB speech on his site. Then during the election, Kerry's crew seemed way positive.

But as you noted, not only winning, but knocking out Daschle and increasing control was amazing. I am impressed. I also liked the class shown by John Kerry in all of this. He handled the defeat well.

I was very impressed with Kerry's handling of defeat, Gore should take notes. When Kerry tired up I couldn't help think that if he'd let the country see him as more real and human earlier than his concession speech he might have won.

I thought Edwards’s intro was the first speech in the 2008 election, not that he has a snowballs chance in hell.

Teddy (another round please) Kennedy actually said in an interview Tuesday morning "President Elect Kerry" and the CNN guys had to correct him. My favorite part of Kerry’s speech was seeing an ashen Kennedy in the front row - he has to be hating life right now and I'm loving that.

OTB

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I meant 35,000 kids (under the age of 10) were dieing every YEAR. My mistake, logic stands.

OTB

Alexander the Great is on his way east. Along the way he encounters the heavily fortified capital of Pserpolis. Knowing a direct invasion will fail, he blockades the town. Years go by; horrible suffering ensues in Pserpolis. Thousands die.

Finnally, Alexander invades. Hundreds of thousands of Pserpolians are killed in the process; the city is nearly destroyed. Once the battle is over, Alexander proclaims proudly to the conquored: "There, now aren't you glad I saved you from starvation?"

How very logical indeed.

[banshie]

There was a big turnout for this election, which is a good thing. The percentage of young people (18 - 24), however, who voted was a miserable 17%! Very disturbing, IMO.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
Oh silly OTB - it's not the condescending attitude that keeps Democrats in the losers column (we actually are that much smarter),

Thanks for proving my point, I know you were kidding, but deep down you really belive this and that is a problem.


Originally posted by bbking

it's the fact that a fundemental switch of political power has occured in the US from the coasts to the interior.

It's actually a North to South migration (Rust Belt to Sun Belt) and is continuing. This and the aging of the population are demographic problems the Liberals are going to have to deal with.


Originally posted by bbking

I think I can now make sense as to why the pre-election polling, the exit polling were so off based and that's because it samples the coastal states with a higher wieghting than the interior. In fact the US narrowly missed an interesting situtation in Ohio - with 131,000 votes Kerry could have won Ohio and the election while losing more than 51% of the popular vote. My hats off to Karl Rove if he figured that out before the election and his stunts like the "Dems to ban the Bible" in West Virgina and Arkansa, while considered laughable at the time by Dems may have been a stroke of genius. Gawd I hate saying nice things about Rove

Silly Liberals indeed - now if only the Democrats can learn from this.


bbk

Two things, on Charlie Rose last night 3 media writers were asked if Karl Rove was now an undisputed political genius - all three said yes. Kerry won Penn by the same margin that Bush won Ohio, very close in those states.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by banshie
There was a big turnout for this election, which is a good thing. The percentage of young people (18 - 24), however, who voted was a miserable 17%! Very disturbing, IMO.

Isn't that the normal turnout for this age group, I've heard that but haven't looked for any stats.

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
This and the aging of the population are demographic problems the Liberals are going to have to deal with.

Very very true. As people age they become more conservative ...
... and curmudgeonly. :p


Originally posted by onthebottom
Two things, on Charlie Rose last night 3 media writers were asked if Karl Rove was now an undisputed political genius - all three said yes. Kerry won Penn by the same margin that Bush won Ohio, very close in those states.

No doubt about it. But what does that say about politics? It does not matter if the opponent is a democrat or a republican. Look at John McCain in 2000. It sure would have been nice if McCain would have won the two terms are the republican leader.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Alexander the Great is on his way east. Along the way he encounters the heavily fortified capital of Pserpolis. Knowing a direct invasion will fail, he blockades the town. Years go by; horrible suffering ensues in Pserpolis. Thousands die.

Finnally, Alexander invades. Hundreds of thousands of Pserpolians are killed in the process; the city is nearly destroyed. Once the battle is over, Alexander proclaims proudly to the conquored: "There, now aren't you glad I saved you from starvation?"

How very logical indeed.

I certainly get the analogy but there are two issues, first the UNSC is the blockading army not just the US and second Iraq was not an innocent city besieged, they had attacked another country.

The sad part of all of this is poor civilians caught in the middle; you need to blame the guy who put them there. Look at Libya, not a shot fired - Saddam could have done this anytime he wanted.

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I certainly get the analogy but there are two issues, first the UNSC is the blockading army not just the US and second Iraq was not an innocent city besieged, they had attacked another country.

The sad part of all of this is poor civilians caught in the middle; you need to blame the guy who put them there. Look at Libya, not a shot fired - Saddam could have done this anytime he wanted.

OTB
And Bush I could have finished the job and taken Saddam out in 1991, hence no siege. :p

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by tompeepin
Very very true. As people age they become more conservative ...
... and curmudgeonly. :p

Perhaps, but something happens to you when you have a career, kids, a mortgage and other responsibilities. You could just call it growing up and getting more mature or you can call it curmudgeonly... (again Liberal condescending attitude).

One of my favorite quotes is a Mark Twain quote (that I will butcher) When I was 18 my father was a fool, by the time I was 21 it is amazing how much the old guy had learned in 3 years" now that I've butchered it I'll have to go find it.


Originally posted by tompeepin

No doubt about it. But what does that say about politics? It does not matter if the opponent is a democrat or a republican. Look at John McCain in 2000. It sure would have been nice if McCain would have won the two terms are the republican leader.

McCain in 08 is my wish (I supported him in the 2000 campaign).

OTB

[banshie]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Isn't that the normal turnout for this age group, I've heard that but haven't looked for any stats.

OTB

I don't know what the stats are for previous elections. It is disturbing anyway, IMO.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by tompeepin
And Bush I could have finished the job and taken Saddam out in 1991, hence no siege. :p

In hindsight that would have been better, don't know if the current situation would not have happened then as well. No "Global Test" would have been passed by doing that.

OTB

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I certainly get the analogy but there are two issues, first the UNSC is the blockading army not just the US and second Iraq was not an innocent city besieged, they had attacked another country.

The sad part of all of this is poor civilians caught in the middle; you need to blame the guy who put them there. Look at Libya, not a shot fired - Saddam could have done this anytime he wanted.

OTB

"The guy who put them there?" Jesus, you guys have a short memory. Where was all this concern for the Iraqi civilian back when Saddam was Rumsfeld's best buddy? What about all the Libyan civilains looking around wondering why just saying "I don't have any WMD's and I'm not going to develop any" gets their dictator a free pass, especially since it turns out that WMDs weren't much a threat to begin with? Why is super-intervenionalism the right policy for Iraq and super-conciliationism the right policy for Libya and Sundan and China and Equitorial Guinea?

Anyway, I'm sorry to interrup your thread-length gloat, OTB. I'm just one of Fukyama's bitter "Last Men" unable to accept the glorious American Jerusalem. Your side has sowed the wind, and the election now gives you all rights to reap the....well, you know the rest.

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
In hindsight that would have been better, don't know if the current situation would not have happened then as well.

Ah yes but then not only US boys would be coming home in body bags. Plus more divisions could have been sent in. There would not have been the hubris of “we can do this with very few troops�. What do I know ... But I strongly believe that more troops and a strong containment plan right from the beginning would have faired much better. It is harder to get back in hand that which has spiraled out of hand. The southern Shia would not have been in the same position as they are today (with the psychology of nothing to lose) due to Bush I leaving them to the slaughter in 1991. Just IMHO.


Originally posted by onthebottom
No "Global Test" would have been passed by doing that.

To hell with "global test" it is all about politics and horse-trading. The problem with this admin is that it is in the good ol' cowboy tradition of the lone ranger. Might does make right, but it is easier to achieve diplomatically, which has it's price, but as we have seen all things do, just different areas of cost.

[stainless]

I have to agree with some of the previous posts it seems the majority of Americans who voted for Bush were more concerned with gay marriages, abortion, etc, - social issues.

What about the huge decifit ? Bush already conceded there will be at least 4 more years of that. What about Iraq ?? There is simply no plan on when the US will or more to the point can pull out of that country. Meanwhile the US dollar continue to drop like a rock, the old age security system is in trouble based on the baby boomers coming up for future retirement.

It should be interesting what kind of country GWB will leave in 4 years - oh well at least gays can't get married !!

p.s. why shouldn't gays get married - let them suffer like the rest of us !

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Drunken Master


Anyway, I'm sorry to interrup your thread-length gloat, OTB. I'm just one of Fukyama's bitter "Last Men" unable to accept the glorious American Jerusalem. Your side has sowed the wind, and the election now gives you all rights to reap the....well, you know the rest.

From the Al Gore school of accepting loss! LOL

Like I would not have been inundated by gloating Canadians if Kerry had won, I don't think I've done much dancing on the grave but I could if you like.........

As for rights to reap, Bush talked today about making the reforming of Social Security a priority now - that didn't take long.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by stainless
I have to agree with some of the previous posts it seems the majority of Americans who voted for Bush were more concerned with gay marriages, abortion, etc, - social issues.

What about the huge decifit ? Bush already conceded there will be at least 4 more years of that. What about Iraq ?? There is simply no plan on when the US will or more to the point can pull out of that country. Meanwhile the US dollar continue to drop like a rock, the old age security system is in trouble based on the baby boomers coming up for future retirement.

It should be interesting what kind of country GWB will leave in 4 years - oh well at least gays can't get married !!

p.s. why shouldn't gays get married - let them suffer like the rest of us !

The interesting thing is that Kerry and Bush had the same Iraq plans. The US public didn't think Kerry would do better with the deficit (Liberal New England and all). The only impact these had was Bush was held accountable for them, which was fair.

US Dollar will help US industry and balance of trade.

LOL - love the last sentence, my feeling exactly.

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
... Where was all this concern for the Iraqi civilian back when Saddam was Rumsfeld's best buddy? ... gets their dictator a free pass, especially since it turns out that WMDs weren't much a threat to begin with? ...

... I'm just one of Fukyama's bitter "Last Men" unable to accept the glorious American Jerusalem. Your side has sowed the wind, and the election now gives you all rights to reap the....well, you know the rest.
Fuckyoma's men? Oh you mean Fukauyomama ... err Fukuyama!

ROTFLMAO

"Drunken Master you typify the very problem with the liberal intelligentsia! :p But you fail to realise that we don't need no smart President. He can always hire a smart one or two to a'vise 'im."

[FalconHawk]

Seems to me that Bush accessed the "silent majority" vote Nixon referred to in the late 60's. That conservative quiet majority of folks out there who do not tend to speak or vote.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
I'll vote for that! :p


bbk

What you really want is Gay Divorce and Gay cheating. LOL

Maybe Gays will move to Canada when you guys approve Gay marriage - they can use your refugee status rules. That would be tragic, so many smart talented people. I just don't get gay bashing, all the gay people I know are just a bit smarter, nicer and better looking than the rest of us.....

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
... I just don't get gay bashing, all the gay people I know are just a bit smarter, nicer and better looking than the rest of us.....

OTB
... and liberal ... :eek:

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by tompeepin
... and liberal ... :eek:

Like you need more of those in Canada....

OTB

[stainless]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Like you need more of those in Canada....

OTB


we don't !! We have far too many people who think the government should solve all our problems. When in fact they've created alot of them.

i hear the latest "boondoggle" will be a national day care program from the Liberal government. - how about giving a simple tax break to families with kids ? or would that be too simple

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by stainless
we don't !! We have far too many people who think the government should solve all our problems. When in fact they've created alot of them.

i hear the latest "boondoggle" will be a national day care program from the Liberal government. - how about giving a simple tax break to families with kids ? or would that be too simple

Nah, people can't be trusted with their money.

OTB

[papasmerf]

sadly I was once a liberal and a commiteeman for Erie county

I resigned after I realized that only one family ran the party and told us how to vote.

was more like board meetings for the mafia than a democratic process.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
My understanding is that they are discussing the best way to deliever a National Day Care - I believe the leading candidate is just that a targeted tax cut along with legislation setting quidelines on standards and pricing. People in Canada are making the mistake that Martin is from the left side of the party - he ain't.


bbk

I've always thought of Martin being from the right side of the left party.

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I've always thought of Martin being from the right side of the left party.

OTB
Here in Canada the liberal party is more centrist than left. The NDP is left. And interestingly our conservative party is left of your democrats, go figure. Thus in the US perspective I am sure that the liberal party would be considered far left.

[red]

Originally posted by stainless
we don't !! We have far too many people who think the government should solve all our problems. When in fact they've created alot of them.

i hear the latest "boondoggle" will be a national day care program from the Liberal government. - how about giving a simple tax break to families with kids ? or would that be too simple

there already are a bunch of tax breaks for just that purpose- for instance- up to $7,500 for child care expenses each year

[onthebottom]

I got a kick out of this, http://www.blogolution.com/images/mooremosaic.JPG

OTB

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I got a kick out of this, http://www.blogolution.com/images/mooremosaic.JPG

OTB

Sorry bro
wont open the link
the name alone suggest Michael Moore
an since he his a jerkoff I just wont improve his numbers by visiting anything of his

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Sorry bro
wont open the link
the name alone suggest Michael Moore
an since he his a jerkoff I just wont improve his numbers by visiting anything of his
That was amusing OTB. But when you have smerfie, he is all the laughter that you need. :D

[tompeepin]

I like this quote by Bertrand de Juvenal

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves" - Gotta love that French mind. :p

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by assoholic
..pathetic absolutely pathetic, I could understand him getting in the first time but after his dismal performance as President the fact he has been re-elected tells me all I need to know about the States. Puff out your chests while you can as your army slowly bleeds to death in Iraq, because after this idiot is through there is no telling how worse off we will all be in 4 years. He is totally devoid of anything other then his family connections. Quite frankly I now have no sympathy for the US whatsoever. If you cant recognize a incompetant lying moron after 4 years , you deserve what you get. Unfortunately your going to drag Canada down with you.

On the contrary, please have a lot of sympathy for us. We will need it after Bush is through with us. And, 48% of us did vote against him.

I tried desperately to encourage people to vote against Bush in the last few days. I think I may have persuaded one person, but not much luck otherwise. What did I hear as far as reasons for voting for Bush? Here's a sample:

1. You know where he stands.
2. He's a religious man, but doesn't force it on you.
3. I don't get my news from the newspapers.
4. Well, Rush Limbaugh said.........etc. etc.
5. John Kerry wants to take away our right to hunt!
6. I'm glad he went after Saddam, the leader of Al Qaida.
7. At least Bush hasn't lied to us like Clinton did.
8. He's a good man who takes responsibilty for his actions.
9. We need to keep Bush in Washington to make sure the national debt doesn't get worse.
10. Kerry is trying to promote homosexuality.

AAAAGGGHHHH!!!!! Everyone of those points is bullshit, but that's what people have told me. Assoholic, I personally (and 48% of my fellow voters) recognized that Bush is, like you said, an incompetent lying moron. Unfortunately, the majority did not recognize that.

Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss.
When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Don't ever question my patriotism.

LOL
Or what?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by irlandais9000
Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss.
When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008.

Your implication (outright statement?) that everyone who voted for Bush - that's 51% of the population of the United States - is irrational is quite amusing.
And illustrates why Bush won - because the Democrats have lost touch with the majority of the population - and then like to blame it on idiocy and radicalism. The latter is ironic.

[CH812]

Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss.
When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008. [/B][/QUOTE]


The reason Canada is more liberal then the US is because of our multiculturalism....... The same liberal values that let our families immigrate to Canada are the ones we support during our election time...... If the US adapted a more mosaic attitude instead of trying to turn everyone into a flag-waver that would be the first step to moving to the center-left

[Ranger68]

Yeah.
I'll wait.
:rolleyes:
Oh, a quick history note - the 101st had to be RELIEVED from Bastogne - they didn't really do much ass-kicking, although their holding of the town certainly did go a long way towards defeating the German offensive in December of '44. Anyway, I just thought you may want to pick a more suitable analogy. Just a little FYI.

[cr1mson2002]

Originally posted by CH812


The reason Canada is more liberal then the US is because of our multiculturalism....... The same liberal values that let our families immigrate to Canada are the ones we support during our election time...... If the US adapted a more mosaic attitude instead of trying to turn everyone into a flag-waver that would be the first step to moving to the center-left

Some may argue that the success of any group is best ensured when the constituents put aside their cultural beliefs and adapt to a common culture for the betterment of society. The concept of the "melting pot" comes to mind.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Yeah.
I'll wait.
:rolleyes:
Oh, a quick history note - the 101st had to be RELIEVED from Bastogne - they didn't really do much ass-kicking, although their holding of the town certainly did go a long way towards defeating the German offensive in December of '44. Anyway, I just thought you may want to pick a more suitable analogy. Just a little FYI.

Ranger has never, never let the facts get in the way of being a jerk. And we should respect him for that.

[stainless]

I hate the multicultural promotion done thru the government. If you want to celebrate a culture that's fine just do it with your own resources.

Canada's liberalism versus the US go farther than simply based on multiculture. Just examine the history of the two countries, american's revolted against the british and took their own form of government, while Canada adopted the british system of government and remain in the commonwealth. (the british finally left after we killed them in hockey ! - they kept kicking the puck, instead of using the stick)

[irlandais9000]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger68
Your implication (outright statement?) that everyone who voted for Bush - that's 51% of the population of the United States - is irrational is quite amusing.
And illustrates why Bush won - because the Democrats have lost touch with the majority of the population - and then like to blame it on idiocy and radicalism. The latter is ironic. [/QUOTE]


Ranger,

I am a Political Science graduate as well an observer of the Amercian political scene for over 30 years. My observations are not quite as simple as you make them out to be, as I realize the inherent compexities involved in any electoral system. I do not view 51 percent of the electorate as idiots or irrational people, many of them are my close friends, relatives and neighbors.

What I do point out is the predominance of simplistic arguments in politics nowadays. 20 years ago, I could have a good political discussion, and hear people on all sides of the spectrum presenting good arguments. I could debate into the wee hours of the morning with friends on a variety of issues, and feel satisfied that we had an intelligent discussion.

However, times have changed. The honest argument has been replaced by statements that are demonstratably false (i.e. saying Kerry has said he wants to ban hunting) and statements about the candidates (Bush is religious, etc.) that do not address the candidates' positions on the issues.

What used to be mere distortion has become outright lie on the part of politicans, and Bush is the best example. For example, Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, saying it wasn't in the interest of national security to dig into such sensitive matters in a time of war. When it became too embarassing for him to continue the opposition, he reversed himself, and supported it. A few months afterward, he DENIED ever having opposed the creation of the commission. The lie was repeated so many times by Bush and his media cronies, most notably in Fox news, that people eventually believed the lie.

When I was a kid, my elders would vote the way they did because of what a political party had done 40 years before that! But now, people don't even remember what a candidate or party did 6 months ago. It's a sad state of affairs.

You may be right, Ranger, perhaps the Dems have lost touch with the majority, and yes, I do blame it on radicalism to a degree. As far as the American people being idiots, that's not what I said, but again I will point out that there is a reliance on simple, irrelevant arguments.

You never addressed my main question, regarding the 10 examples I gave. What do you think about those examples, are they intelligent arguments to you? And if you don't think they are, how is it possible to have a discussion when people rely on cliches and slogans so much? If you asked me why I think you should vote for Kerry, and I said because he is a good man, would you think that I really answered your question? How come the Republicans get a free pass in this area? Still looking for answers................

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by CH812
Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss.
When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008.


The reason Canada is more liberal then the US is because of our multiculturalism....... The same liberal values that let our families immigrate to Canada are the ones we support during our election time...... If the US adapted a more mosaic attitude instead of trying to turn everyone into a flag-waver that would be the first step to moving to the center-left [/B][/QUOTE]


That is a good observation, CH. It unfortunately is a difficult thing to make happen in the US though. Perhaps someday it will happen, as the Hispanic population becomes a higher percentage, but's it hard to say.

Unfortunately, in the next 4 years, we still have to deal with more Bush thefts from the treasury (the hundreds of billions going to his biggest contributors, the drug companies and the defense contractors), sabotage of Social Security and Medicare, and who konws what else.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Yeah.
I'll wait.
:rolleyes:
Oh, a quick history note - the 101st had to be RELIEVED from Bastogne - they didn't really do much ass-kicking, although their holding of the town certainly did go a long way towards defeating the German offensive in December of '44. Anyway, I just thought you may want to pick a more suitable analogy. Just a little FYI.

The 101st light division had to be "relieved" after holding off and effectively defeating three panzer divisions, two of them tank divisions, under brutal conditions, ending any hope for the Nazis in the west. It is arguably one of the most courageous stands in military history, and no, they did do some serious ass-kicking. Just a little FYI.

[Don]

Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss. When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008.

One point that needs to be hammered home, especially to the folks here:

Take the religious right seriously instead of mocking them. The number of voters is just too great.

ex:
The problem, said Michael Lerner, is that too many fellow liberals are "trapped in a long-standing disdain for religion and tone-deaf to the spiritual needs that underlie the move to the right." They need to shed a core belief that Bush voters "are fundamentally stupid or evil."

The left, he and others argue, has to show the religious basis for its policy positions and not let the right define morality.
--------------------------------------
ex:
Democrats' ideological spectrum that they "have to take the time to understand the concerns of rural families and Christian families," as Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta put it. "We cannot ignore the swath of red [Republican] states across the South and Midwest. The party of FDR has become the party of Michael Moore and [his film] 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' and it does not help us in big parts of the country."

------------------------------------
Let's face it. Liberal comedians making fun of NASCAR, Toby Keith, conservative bible belt people, southern accents and so on helped mobilize Bush voters. Even Ann Cloutier went on yesterday thanking Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Air America Radio, etc... for their help in pissing off their conservative base enough to vote in record numbers. It was no secret the Repubs used quotes and clips to help mobilize.

American liberals may not like them. But pissing them off is not going to help. there are just too many of them to ignore.

It's easy for us to ridicule them but when we do so publically, we are actually hurting the people who we identify with the most in the US - liberal America. When Carolyn Parrish calls Americans morons and then says she prefers Bush to lose.... who do you think Americans will want to vote for?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Ranger has never, never let the facts get in the way of being a jerk. And we should respect him for that.

Actually, the facts always get in the way - it's all about the facts first. Being a jerk comes a close second.
:)

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by irlandais9000
QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger68
Your implication (outright statement?) that everyone who voted for Bush - that's 51% of the population of the United States - is irrational is quite amusing.
And illustrates why Bush won - because the Democrats have lost touch with the majority of the population - and then like to blame it on idiocy and radicalism. The latter is ironic.




You never addressed my main question, regarding the 10 examples I gave. What do you think about those examples, are they intelligent arguments to you? And if you don't think they are, how is it possible to have a discussion when people rely on cliches and slogans so much? If you asked me why I think you should vote for Kerry, and I said because he is a good man, would you think that I really answered your question? How come the Republicans get a free pass in this area? Still looking for answers................ [/QUOTE]

I'm not interested in debating these points with you.
I'm just pointing out that your insinuation that those who voted for Bush, all 51% of the American population, are irrational is foolish and weakens the rest of your argument.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Asterix
The 101st light division had to be "relieved" after holding off and effectively defeating three panzer divisions, two of them tank divisions, under brutal conditions, ending any hope for the Nazis in the west. It is arguably one of the most courageous stands in military history, and no, they did do some serious ass-kicking. Just a little FYI.

No, they were pretty much on the receiving end. That they could hold in position until relieved while having the shit kicked out of them was remarkable - and I pointed this out in my post.
Hilarious. I actually go to the trouble of outlining the situation, then have people tell me what the situation was. LOL
Anyway, I was pointing out to DQ, who still doesn't get it, that if you're going to threaten physical violence (which is a pretty immature and retarded thing to do on the Internet), you may want to pick an analogy more appropriate.
:)
Clear?
Good.

Oh, and technically, the 101st was an *airborne* division, not a light division - although after the jump in support of D-Day it was certainly treated like a regular infrantry unit, not an elite para unit. (Not that I think you understand the difference.) And a Panzer division IS a tank division, so I guess you'd better go back and figure out your numbers. Just some more advice.

[clipper]

American Exceptionalism is the real problem here. Americans are constantly immersed in the idea that the USA is the "beacon of freedom in the world" , the "good guys" and god's chosen people.

The culture reinforces this self-image. Most people get their ideas about what the USA is like and it's motives are from American movies. The concept of the "frontier society", the rugged individualist has been cultivated for 100 years in dime-store novels, then movies.

Unfortunately, the frontier society was a lawless place. The truth is the cowboy heroes were back-shooting drunkards .

The biggest disappointment to me is that American seem unable to take any responsibility for their actions in the world.
Isn't it time to stop mourning Pearl Harbour and give at least a passing thought to the civilians incinerated in the firebombing of Tokyo and the detonation of two nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The Iraq war is plainly illegal, and has resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent non-combatants. I expected Americans to hold Bush accountable, but given the cultural brainwashing, I understand why they did not.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Now, you've crossed the line. My division held the line.
Against heavy losses they held the line and stopped the
German counter-offensive. They changed
the course of the war. Had the Germans defeated the 101st
the war would have taken a different direction.

How dare you, you leg, you noncombatant. What do you
know about war?

I'm sorry - I didn't know I was talking to a Bastogne veteran.
Were you in Band of Brothers? Who played you?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by clipper

The biggest disappointment to me is that American seem unable to take any responsibility for their actions in the world.
Isn't it time to stop mourning Pearl Harbour and give at least a passing thought to the civilians incinerated in the firebombing of Tokyo and the detonation of two nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The Iraq war is plainly illegal, and has resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent non-combatants. I expected Americans to hold Bush accountable, but given the cultural brainwashing, I understand why they did not.

The Iraq war is *arguably* illegal, not "plainly". Nothing about international law, especially as it applies to warmaking is remotely *clear*.

And I'm not sure what point you're making about the end of WWII. Frankly, the Americans almost certainly SAVED MILLIONS of Japanese lives by ending the war the way they did. And the Americans have apologized for more of their actions during WWII than the Japanese ever have or will, despite the fact that they were the ones who initiated a war of aggression.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
There may be a melting pot. But, it's hard wiring that though we are
of similar backgrouds we find reasons to have cultural differences.
Without raising issues, the Canadians are divided among
the French speaking, Ontario, the Plaines Provinces and the
West Coast Provinces. The 'melting pot' is, at the end of the
day, a desired end but none the less a myth.

Nonsense. This coming from an American? And you can't tell me the difference between cities like New York and Toronto??
I understand your point about cultural and linguistic *strata* but to say that there's no difference between the American and Canadian ways of doing things - with regards to cultural assimilation - doesn't hold water.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by clipper
American Exceptionalism is the real problem here. Americans are constantly immersed in the idea that the USA is the "beacon of freedom in the world" , the "good guys" and god's chosen people.

The culture reinforces this self-image. Most people get their ideas about what the USA is like and it's motives are from American movies. The concept of the "frontier society", the rugged individualist has been cultivated for 100 years in dime-store novels, then movies.

Unfortunately, the frontier society was a lawless place. The truth is the cowboy heroes were back-shooting drunkards .

The biggest disappointment to me is that American seem unable to take any responsibility for their actions in the world.
Isn't it time to stop mourning Pearl Harbour and give at least a passing thought to the civilians incinerated in the firebombing of Tokyo and the detonation of two nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The Iraq war is plainly illegal, and has resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocent non-combatants. I expected Americans to hold Bush accountable, but given the cultural brainwashing, I understand why they did not.

A bit of American Exceptionalism from the Economist (see Nov. 6 2003):

But the term “exceptionalism� is more than a description of how America differs from the rest of the world. It also encompasses the significance of those differences and the policies based upon them. People have been searching for some wider meaning to the place since its earliest days. In 1630, the year the Massachusetts Bay Company was founded, John Winthrop, the colony's governor, described his new land as “a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.�

And as they have looked, people have found two quite different reasons for thinking that America is special. One is that it is uniquely founded on principles to which any country can aspire. In 1787, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the first Federalist Paper that “It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.�

That is America-as-model. George Bush has embraced the idea. Commemorating the first anniversary of the attacks of September 11th 2001, he said that “the ideal of America is the hope of all mankind.� He was echoing Lincoln, who called America “the last, best hope of earth�.

But exceptionalism has another meaning: that America is intrinsically different from other countries in its values and institutions, and is therefore not necessarily a model. Thomas Jefferson said that “Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours are perhaps more peculiar than those of any other in the universe.�

In 1929, Jay Lovestone, the head of the American communist party, was summoned to Moscow. Stalin demanded to know why the worldwide communist revolution had advanced not one step in the largest capitalist country. Lovestone replied that America lacked the preconditions for communism, such as feudalism and aristocracy. No less an authority than Friedrich Engels had said the same thing, talking of “the special American conditions...which make bourgeois conditions look like a beau idéal to them.� So had an Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, and a British socialist, H.G. Wells, who had both argued that America's unique origins had produced a distinctive value system and unusual politics.

America is different than Old Europe and much of the world, and we view that as a good thing.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Nonsense. This coming from an American? And you can't tell me the difference between cities like New York and Toronto??
I understand your point about cultural and linguistic *strata* but to say that there's no difference between the American and Canadian ways of doing things - with regards to cultural assimilation - doesn't hold water.

I can't think of any city that is like New York.

OTB

[someone]

Originally posted by galt
hmmm, sort of like the incompetant lying moron that just left the Prime Minister's office...The one who Canadians elected for three straight majorities and sat as he spoke to imaginary homeless people and openly stole from us with contempt. Me thinks you should take a good hard look behind your pointed finger

True but at least you can't say that a majority of Canadians were foolish enough to vote for him. You can't say the same for a Majority of Americans.

[someone]

Originally posted by irlandais9000
Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss.
When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008.

First, I am not sure if I like your refering to Bush as "right" as he is not right on economic issures (e.g. a balanced buget, etc.)

However, in response to your question, if his record over the last 4 years was not enough to defeat Bush, I can't see any hope. Maybe if things get really bad people will wake up. Maybe if the U.S goes so far into debt that foreigners stop lending them money? However, if the last four years were not enough to wake Americans up, I really don't know what is.

P.S. excuse the typo on my last post.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by someone
True but at least you can't say that a majority of Canadians were foolish enough to vote for him. You can't say the same for a Majority of Americans.

A weakness in your system.

OTB

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
True but at least you can't say that a majority of Canadians were foolish enough to vote for him. You can't say the same for a Majority of Americans.


ummmmmmmmm

we limit our election to citizens, that would explain why Canadians can't vote in it. Myself I am pretty happy about that.

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by someone
First, I am not sure if I like your refering to Bush as "right" as he is not right on economic issures (e.g. a balanced buget, etc.)

However, in response to your question, if his record over the last 4 years was not enough to defeat Bush, I can't see any hope. Maybe if things get really bad people will wake up. Maybe if the U.S goes so far into debt that foreigners stop lending them money? However, if the last four years were not enough to wake Americans up, I really don't know what is.

P.S. excuse the typo on my last post.


Someone, you do make a good point regarding the use of the word "right". I only use that word since it is the commonly used term in the US.

Traditionally, the "right" has been more fiscally conservative than the left, and I did vote for some conservatives when I first started voting. However, the right in the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible, and the tradition no longer exists. The Republicans don't give a damn about running record deficits and turning over the treasury to their biggest contributors. True conservatives have nothing in common with this Republican party.

[papasmerf]

wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP.

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by Ranger68
You never addressed my main question, regarding the 10 examples I gave. What do you think about those examples, are they intelligent arguments to you? And if you don't think they are, how is it possible to have a discussion when people rely on cliches and slogans so much? If you asked me why I think you should vote for Kerry, and I said because he is a good man, would you think that I really answered your question? How come the Republicans get a free pass in this area? Still looking for answers................

I'm not interested in debating these points with you.
I'm just pointing out that your insinuation that those who voted for Bush, all 51% of the American population, are irrational is foolish and weakens the rest of your argument. [/B][/QUOTE]


So, you misstate and oversimplify my arguments, and then announce that you aren't interested in debating my main point. This is exactly the kind of thing I was lamenting in my original post.

[Ranger68]

No, I was taking exception to your application of the term "irrational" to the majority of the US population.
That's all.
It's perfectly clear what you said. If you meant something else, perhaps you should be more careful what you post.

[irlandais9000]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by papasmerf
wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP. [/QUOTE

Papasmerf, I suspect you are absolutely right about this. It would be sad, however, as she is no more trustworthy than her boss.

She is the one who testified, regarding the 8/6/01 briefing to the President, that the memo was about possible attacks outside the US and was only historical in nature. This, despite the fact that the title was about attacks inside the US. If you have any doubt about what I am saying, refer to the 9/11 commission report, available in many bookstores. The memo clearly is about attacks INSIDE the US, and mentions hijackings and federal buildings. But, of course, Bush and Rice for 2 years denied any specific warnings, and then when this memo came to light, they mischaracterized its contents.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by irlandais9000
[QUOTE]Originally posted by papasmerf
wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP. [/QUOTE

Papasmerf, I suspect you are absolutely right about this. It would be sad, however, as she is no more trustworthy than her boss.

She is the one who testified, regarding the 8/6/01 briefing to the President, that the memo was about possible attacks outside the US and was only historical in nature. This, despite the fact that the title was about attacks inside the US. If you have any doubt about what I am saying, refer to the 9/11 commission report, available in many bookstores. The memo clearly is about attacks INSIDE the US, and mentions hijackings and federal buildings. But, of course, Bush and Rice for 2 years denied any specific warnings, and then when this memo came to light, they mischaracterized its contents.

since you brought it up

please provide the proof of spacific warnings pertaining to the 9/11 attact and naming of targets.

Anythiong less the sunstanciated proof will show you are repeating the same crap that move on did.

You brought it up

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by Ranger68
No, I was taking exception to your application of the term "irrational" to the majority of the US population.
That's all.
It's perfectly clear what you said. If you meant something else, perhaps you should be more careful what you post.



Again, my focus is on irrational and simplistic arguments, and you are ironically oversimplifying my post. I think I brought up some valid points, such as wondering how it can be half the people in this country think there was clear cut proof of Saddam involvement in 9/11. Perhaps I could be more careful in what I post, as per your recommendation, but then again, I am not interested in boiling everything down to one easy sentence.

[Ranger68]

*Don't* boil things down to one easy sentence. That was your problem.
Clear?
Anyway, good luck with your argument. I hope that works out for ya.
:rolleyes:

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by papasmerf
since you brought it up

please provide the proof of spacific warnings pertaining to the 9/11 attact and naming of targets.

Anythiong less the sunstanciated proof will show you are repeating the same crap that move on did.

You brought it up



Actually, I am not referring to Moveon, I am referring to what the 9/11 commission said, which by the way was bipartisan and came to unanimous findings in the end. You may refer to the Authorized edition of The 9/11 Commission Report, with the memo in question on pages 261 to 262. It is in the chapter titled "The System was Blinking Red" on pages 254 to 277. I would urge everyone to read the entire chapter to ensure the proper context for the memo.

Papasmerf, I don't believe anyone should take for granted what Moveon has to say, since their agenda is obvious. Nor should anyone take for granted what Fox news has to say, as their agenda is obvious also.

[irlandais9000]

Originally posted by Ranger68
*Don't* boil things down to one easy sentence. That was your problem.
Clear?
Anyway, good luck with your argument. I hope that works out for ya.
:rolleyes:



I believe my post was considerably longer than one sentence, as will be evident to anyone who read the original post. Perhaps we are talking about a different post.

[someone]

Originally posted by onthebottom
A weakness in your system.

OTB

Actually with the electoral college system you can also have a president elected even in cases of only two candidates. Moreover, there is nothing in the American system to rule out four strong candidates which would make a similar outcome just as likely. However, at least in the Canadian system, a vote break down such as the one the liberals got usually produces a minority putting a check on the candidate (Of course it is mathematically possible to have a Majority government with well less than 25%
of the popular vote when there are for parties but that is unlikely).

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
ummmmmmmmm

we limit our election to citizens, that would explain why Canadians can't vote in it. Myself I am pretty happy about that.

I admit that my typo made my original post a big unclear. Nonetheless, if you read the post I was responding to, I think you will see that I meant that only a minority of Canadians were foolish enough to reelect a dishonest government when a Majority of Americans did the same.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by papasmerf
wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP.

Why not on the top of the ticket? I think the USA is ready for a female president.
What an interesting choice.

[someone]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by irlandais9000
Someone, you do make a good point regarding the use of the word "right". I only use that word since it is the commonly used term in the US.

Traditionally, the "right" has been more fiscally conservative than the left, and I did vote for some conservatives when I first started voting. However, the right in the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible, and the tradition no longer exists. The Republicans don't give a damn about running record deficits and turning over the treasury to their biggest contributors. True conservatives have nothing in common with this Republican party. [/QUOTE

I find that the word “right� means different things to different people. In economics we usually use it to mean a greater reliance on market forces as opposed to government. I.e. a limited role for government. However, many others do use it to mean strong government in terms of a police state. I find it easier just to stay away from the term as these two meanings are opposed and thus create confusion..

Even in the days of Reagan, I thought that it was a strange alliance between those with classical liberal views (which is more or less how I see myself) and religious social conservative types. However, it seems to me that the religious types have completely taken over the Republican Party. Classical liberals may not like big government (in terms of taxes and spending). However, it now seems to me that the Democratic are the least worst choice for them today.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
No, they were pretty much on the receiving end. That they could hold in position until relieved while having the shit kicked out of them was remarkable - and I pointed this out in my post.
Hilarious. I actually go to the trouble of outlining the situation, then have people tell me what the situation was. LOL
Anyway, I was pointing out to DQ, who still doesn't get it, that if you're going to threaten physical violence (which is a pretty immature and retarded thing to do on the Internet), you may want to pick an analogy more appropriate.
:)
Clear?
Good.

Oh, and technically, the 101st was an *airborne* division, not a light division - although after the jump in support of D-Day it was certainly treated like a regular infrantry unit, not an elite para unit. (Not that I think you understand the difference.) And a Panzer division IS a tank division, so I guess you'd better go back and figure out your numbers. Just some more advice.


The 101st airborne is often referred to as a light infantry division when talking about Bastogne. which is what I thought we were doing (and, yes, I do understand the difference, but thanks for the condescension anyway). As far as Panzer divisions, of course you are correct. My mistake. I should have said the attacking Panzer Corp had two tank divisions and one volksgrenadier division.

The 101st was more than just a punching bag getting the shit kicked out of it while waiting for help to arrive. By the end of the battle they had inflicted on the Germans three and a half times as many casualties than their own, and destroyed 200 tanks and armored vehicles. If the 101st got the shit kicked out of them than the Germans got the shit kicked out of them even worse.

Not really interested what you and Don were going at each other about, but hey, thanks for the explanation. Apologies to the others in this thread, and now return it to the main topic of rant.

[someone]

Originally posted by irlandais9000
Someone, you do make a good point regarding the use of the word "right". I only use that word since it is the commonly used term in the US.

Traditionally, the "right" has been more fiscally conservative than the left, and I did vote for some conservatives when I first started voting. However, the right in the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible, and the tradition no longer exists. The Republicans don't give a damn about running record deficits and turning over the treasury to their biggest contributors. True conservatives have nothing in common with this Republican party.

I should really be more careful of my typos. I am reposted the following to avoid confusion. Sorry.

Even in the days of Reagan, I thought that the Republican Party was a strange alliance between those with classical liberal views (which is more or less how I see myself) and religious social conservative types. However, it seems to me that the religious types have completely taken over the Republican Party. Classical liberals may not like big government (in terms of taxes and spending). However, it now seems to me that the Democratic are the least worst choice for them today.

[Drunken Master]

irlandais: don't worry about Ranger. He doesn't debate ideas, just semantics. Splitting hairs makes him feel special.

As much as I've said the left needs to do some serious thinking, I think the right might be in for some as well. Our old ideas about what makes a fiscal- and foreign policy-conservative no longer seem to apply.

[irlandais9000]

I agree, DM. The left needs to figure out how to win elections without becoming like the Reps (I hope it's possible), and the right needs to figure out what direction they want to take the country in the post Bush era, i.e., will they go back to true conservatism or not.

[clipper]

Originally posted by Ranger68
The Iraq war is *arguably* illegal, not "plainly". Nothing about international law, especially as it applies to warmaking is remotely *clear*.

And I'm not sure what point you're making about the end of WWII. Frankly, the Americans almost certainly SAVED MILLIONS of Japanese lives by ending the war the way they did. And the Americans have apologized for more of their actions during WWII than the Japanese ever have or will, despite the fact that they were the ones who initiated a war of aggression.

How about "immoral" instead of illegal?

"They" initiated a war of aggression,eh? As if "they" got a vote.
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Tokyo firebombings were intended to kill non-combatant civilians. They were not targeted on combatants.
This is clearly immoral. What amazing arithmetic do you use to say MILLIONS of Japanese lives were saved??

The killing of non-combatants has often been considered murder.
Soldiers in combat zones in WWII were court-martialled and executed for killing civilians. Not often, but it did happen.
I guess if you get an order to commit murder then it's OK. Wasn't this discussed at the Nuremberg trials?

Apologies, rebuilding efforts etc are mere justifications for
this behaviour.

It's amazing to me that gay marriage is a moral issue, but 20,000 dead Iraqis is not.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Asterix
The 101st airborne is often referred to as a light infantry division when talking about Bastogne. which is what I thought we were doing (and, yes, I do understand the difference, but thanks for the condescension anyway). As far as Panzer divisions, of course you are correct. My mistake. I should have said the attacking Panzer Corp had two tank divisions and one volksgrenadier division.

The 101st was more than just a punching bag getting the shit kicked out of it while waiting for help to arrive. By the end of the battle they had inflicted on the Germans three and a half times as many casualties than their own, and destroyed 200 tanks and armored vehicles. If the 101st got the shit kicked out of them than the Germans got the shit kicked out of them even worse.

Not really interested what you and Don were going at each other about, but hey, thanks for the explanation. Apologies to the others in this thread, and now return it to the main topic of rant.

*sigh* Glad you're missing the point.
Saying that you're going to come over and "do a Bastogne" on someone is like saying you're going to come over and "do a Thermopylae".
"Yeah, I'm gonna come over and stand in your doorway so nobody can come or go. You're gonna beat me up, yes, but when my bigger friend gets there, he's gonna take care of business!"
There are probably better analogies to use.
Okay?
Okay.
LOL

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
irlandais: don't worry about Ranger. He doesn't debate ideas, just semantics. Splitting hairs makes him feel special.

As much as I've said the left needs to do some serious thinking, I think the right might be in for some as well. Our old ideas about what makes a fiscal- and foreign policy-conservative no longer seem to apply.

I debate ideas with people *capable* of debating ideas.
Which hasn't yet included you, Drunken Master.
Maybe one day.
Those who can't *understand English* get semantic debates.
Of course, if you say the sky is red, and I say it's blue - and you say it's now a semantic debate, wellllll ........
:D

[langeweile]

Originally posted by clipper
How about "immoral" instead of illegal?

"They" initiated a war of aggression,eh? As if "they" got a vote.
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Tokyo firebombings were intended to kill non-combatant civilians. They were not targeted on combatants.
This is clearly immoral. What amazing arithmetic do you use to say MILLIONS of Japanese lives were saved??

The killing of non-combatants has often been considered murder.
Soldiers in combat zones in WWII were court-martialled and executed for killing civilians. Not often, but it did happen.
I guess if you get an order to commit murder then it's OK. Wasn't this discussed at the Nuremberg trials?

Apologies, rebuilding efforts etc are mere justifications for
this behaviour.

It's amazing to me that gay marriage is a moral issue, but 20,000 dead Iraqis is not.

We better not get in to a discussion on war crimes. It is a non winning issue.
ANY country that EVER was involved in a war has comited war crimes. NO EXCEPTIONS.
While you can discuss numbers, no country can ever defend it's war record.

"War is the devils play ground"(DQ a man who's been there)

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by clipper
How about "immoral" instead of illegal?

"They" initiated a war of aggression,eh? As if "they" got a vote.
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Tokyo firebombings were intended to kill non-combatant civilians. They were not targeted on combatants.
This is clearly immoral. What amazing arithmetic do you use to say MILLIONS of Japanese lives were saved??

The killing of non-combatants has often been considered murder.
Soldiers in combat zones in WWII were court-martialled and executed for killing civilians. Not often, but it did happen.
I guess if you get an order to commit murder then it's OK. Wasn't this discussed at the Nuremberg trials?

Apologies, rebuilding efforts etc are mere justifications for
this behaviour.

It's amazing to me that gay marriage is a moral issue, but 20,000 dead Iraqis is not.

Okay, immoral is probably a better argument than illegal.
(Although, of course, DM will say this is just more semantics. :rolleyes: LOL)

Uh, yes, THE JAPANESE initiated a war of aggression. I'm sorry - are we now distinguishing between the actions of a government and the will of its populace? *You're* not.

To get into the debate, how would the war have ended if not by the use of the atomic bomb?

The US had a plan ready - Operations Olympic and Coronet. The first phase would have involved comprehensive destruction, by air, of the Japanese transportation network, and total interdiction of sea and air traffic - essentially, a total blockade. This would have lasted upwards of *six months*.

This would have quickly turned into an utter disaster for the entire Japanese population - mass starvation would have been the order of the day since they would not be able to effectively move what food they had across islands and prefectures to the large population centres on Honshu. Of course, they relied extremely heavily on imports of practically everything in any case, including much of their foodstuffs. Not to mention that the Japanese civilians, en masse, were being recruited into defense organizations. The armed forces still believed, as late as mid-1945, that they could defend the islands - operation Ketsu Go - that they possessed a rational military-political strategy to continue the war.

Considering that no Japanese government had surrendered in 2600 years, and no Japanese outpost had surrendered during the course of the War, it seems likely that they would have fought for their homeland, like at Okinawa, to the death.

The Japanese casualty figures, due to combat, disease, and starvation, would most likely have climbed to *several million*.

I won't debate the rest of your *supposition* that the firebombings (of which, two were *atomic* bombings, not firebombings, of course - and, not to mention, that *sixty* Japanese cities, not just three, were destroyed by strategic bombing) were intended to kill noncombatants. It's not worth it. I will say again that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent capitulation of the Japanese government likely saved MILLIONS OF JAPANESE LIVES.

How's my arithmetic now?

I will say, as a blanket statement, that the bombings of civilian centres in World War II ranks as one of the most heinous developments in mankind's history.

This does not alter my premise.

And, regarding "apologies", my point was that the US has been more apologetic for more things than MOST if not ALL nations regarding the conduct of World War II, so to criticize them on this point is terribly weak.

[lenharper]

Agreed.

In "the Fog of War" -- the Errol Morris documentary on Robert McNamara one of the more honest and interesting things McNamara says is that if the Americans had been on the losing side the enemy would have been well within their rights to convict both he and General Curtis Lemay(Lemat) of war crimes for the firebombings of the Japanese cities.

For the more knee jerk members of the audience this is no way intended to be an anti anything statement -- just the recounting of an opinion of a man who was put into the position of making harder decisions that any of us will ever have to make.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by lenharper
Agreed.

In "the Fog of War" -- the Errol Morris documentary on Robert McNamara one of the more honest and interesting things McNamara says is that if the Americans had been on the losing side the enemy would have been well within their rights to convict both he and General Curtis Lemay(Lemat) of war crimes for the firebombings of the Japanese cities.

For the more knee jerk members of the audience this is no way intended to be an anti anything statement -- just the recounting of an opinion of a man who was put into the position of making harder decisions that any of us will ever have to make.

"Firebombings" is a bugbear. MILLIONS of civilians were killed *by all sides* during bombing raids of all sorts. To assert that these raids were somehow "beyond the pale" is to put too fine a point on things.

Again, the mass "strategic" bombing of civilians during World War II was one of the most heinous acts ever perpetrated, from a moral perspective.

[assoholic]

5Ranger youy seem to know a liitle about the subject, but you lweave out a very important part of the plan for the invasion of Japan. I am wondering wherther or not this was on purpose, if it was you're a jerk.
There was an excellent show on the The Learning Channel a couple of years ago on the now declassified plan.
Even on the show howewver they very briefly mentioned it.
The dirty little secret was this, the Americans had stockpiled millions upon millions of gallons of Chemical weapons in the South Pacific. They knew what kind of reception they would have gotten had they invaded the home islands. Had the Atomic bomb not worked the invasion of Japan would have made Normandy look like a picnic. Preceded in all likelyhood by a carpetbombing of Japan with chemical weapons. The casualitiies and devastation would have been uncomprehensible.
War is Hell, unfortunately under Bush the US is now adopting the
foriegn policy of Imperial Japan, pre-emption, kind of makes you wonder how all the spirits of those dead marines feel.

[lenharper]

McNamara was saying that he and General Curtis Le-- whateverthefuckhisnameisican'tremember,sorry were the authors of this strategy and that he now considers their actions to be that of war criminals in the accepted understanding of that charge.

I would consider a war crime, no matter what side perpetrated it, to be "beyond the pale".

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by assoholic
5Ranger youy seem to know a liitle about the subject, but you lweave out a very important part of the plan for the invasion of Japan. I am wondering wherther or not this was on purpose, if it was you're a jerk.
There was an excellent show on the The Learning Channel a couple of years ago on the now declassified plan.
Even on the show howewver they very briefly mentioned it.
The dirty little secret was this, the Americans had stockpiled millions upon millions of gallons of Chemical weapons in the South Pacific. They knew what kind of reception they would have gotten had they invaded the home islands. Had the Atomic bomb not worked the invasion of Japan would have made Normandy look like a picnic. Preceded in all likelyhood by a carpetbombing of Japan with chemical weapons. The casualitiies and devastation would have been uncomprehensible.
War is Hell, unfortunately under Bush the US is now adopting the
foriegn policy of Imperial Japan, pre-emption, kind of makes you wonder how all the spirits of those dead marines feel.

I'm not sure what your point is, except to insinuate that I'm a jerk. LOL

The atomic bombing of Japan saved millions of Japanese lives. Not to mention countless American lives, of course.

I'm glad you get all your information from the Learning Channel, but you may want to broaden your input. The proposition that the US was going to use chemical weapons in a mass fashion on Japan is pretty spurious, and has been rigorously and vigorously attacked by military historians of many nationalities.

Anway, what's your point again? It's not clear amid the rhetoric.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by bbking
And anything about war is an exercise in morality??? You forget that era of professional armies ended with the French at the turn of the 1800's and the era of Total war began. When the era of the pro army ended so did the civilaty of war. You can't pick and choose what you think is moral about war unless you wish to go back to the days of old, when officers of opposing armies had dinner together while the troops they commanded slaughtered each other - not only were they friends (the officers that is) if they were European they most likely were related.


bbk

This is nonsense unless you accept Clausewitz's definition of "total war". Which, apparently, all the warring nations of World War I and II did.
This should not be taken as evidence that this needs to be the only way to conduct war now and in the future. Indeed, despite protestations to the contrary, I think it likely that much of the world has taken a step back from this insanity in recent decades.
Keegan has written several excellent books on the topic.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by lenharper
McNamara was saying that he and General Curtis Le-- whateverthefuckhisnameisican'tremember,sorry were the authors of this strategy and that he now considers their actions to be that of war criminals in the accepted understanding of that charge.

I would consider a war crime, no matter what side perpetrated it, to be "beyond the pale".

The US did not develop the dubious "strategy" of bombing of civilian populace. It was, in fact, an Italian who first proposed that an air campaign could so totally destroy and demoralize a nation that it would lose its will to fight. This theory had many proponents among the antagonists of World War II, but the British and Germans, and Italians naturally, were foremost among them. In fact, the Americans came late to the strategic air force table.

And if you want to call it a war crime, fine. I'm not going to argue very strongly against it. But DON'T prosecute the perpetrators of "fire bombing" apart from the rest of the perpetrators. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. That was my point, once again.

[lenharper]

OK, get the stick out of your ass, there's no need to get your back up.

All I was trying to say about the bombing of civilian centers in Japan (and yes I know all about the blitz and the fire(don't say Fire it seems to enrage him) bombing of Dresden and yes they are all crimes.

I tried to make it clear in my post that this wasn't anti-american and was simply agreeing with Langiele's assertion that all nations in any war committ war crimes.

I used the McNamara example because it seemed most salient to the discussion. He is also a fascinating fellow in that he can sit in judgement of himself and can look at his past actions analytically.

Christ some of you people act like mad dogs...

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking You may want to shorten that to two years but who knows... bbk

2 years, ah yes the mid term elections. You will of course remember who is the only sitting president to expand his parties control of Congress during a mid-term election - that's right sports fans W in 2002. The Dems are in even worse shape locally than they are nationally - that and demographics are working against them. It's a Red nation!

OTB

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by lenharper
OK, get the stick out of your ass, there's no need to get your back up.

All I was trying to say about the bombing of civilian centers in Japan (and yes I know all about the blitz and the fire(don't say Fire it seems to enrage him) bombing of Dresden and yes they are all crimes.

I tried to make it clear in my post that this wasn't anti-american and was simply agreeing with Langiele's assertion that all nations in any war committ war crimes.

I used the McNamara example because it seemed most salient to the discussion. He is also a fascinating fellow in that he can sit in judgement of himself and can look at his past actions analytically.

Christ some of you people act like mad dogs...

I'm sorry - what about my reply made you think that?
I think YOU'RE clearly the one who's getting out of hand.
Sheesh.
Don't post if you don't want people to reply, bub.

[assoholic]

...my point is this, the American had stock piled millions of gallons of the stuff, no in the official plans they were not mentioned but. Not everything was de-classified. I am so tired of idealologues continually trying to "convince us" , just tell us the facts. We could argue all day about whether ore not they would have used them, the fact they were there is not debatebale, if you care about the facts. Some of us are actually searching for the truth of things and welcome any additional info, some are dumbasses who think they know it all and simply make up crap they "know" to be true or convenienetly leave out facts that might not support their position.
War is killing, think of your mom or dad or kids because thats what makes up the 100,000 killed in Iraq. Bush is a snivelling upper class twit who still has not really told us why they were killed. I give a shit , some of you apparently dont.

[Ranger68]

The Americans STILL have *vast stockpiles* of chemical and biological agents. This is not evidence that they intend to use them, or that they have been weaponized. You argument is AWFUL, terribly weak.
The Americans were the ONLY major combatant not to *regularly* use chemical weapons in WWI - this should tell you something - the fact that they have been involved in major conflicts, in possession of these weapons, for almost a hundred years, and have not used them.
Keep clutching at straws, though.

[assoholic]

..well, the US was a very junior participant in WWI, I believe in fact Canada feilded a larger army, though I could be wrong.

[Ranger68]

No, the US was NOT a very junior participant in WWI. You are wrong. The US had about four million men mobilized by the end of the war, FAR more than Canada.
But, thanks for playing.
Look, if your proposal is that the US was prepared to use massed chemical munitions on the Japanese populace in preparation for the homeland invasion, why weren't these weapons used during some of the many amphibious invasions of the Pacific campaign? It defies logic.

[assoholic]

..well if you knew your facts that would be because they bypassed all the heavily fortified islands and attacked the smaller ones, very good strategy indeed, unfortunately you are really beging to sound less and less knowledgeable. To say the US was not a junior partner in WW1 shows your lack of Knowledge. It was the future waves of American troops that decided trhe matter for the Germans not anything the Americans contributed in actual fighting on the ground.

[Ranger68]

They bypassed "all the heavily fortified islands", huh? Uh, like Okinawa? Guam? Guadalcanal?
Please.
And what does that have to do with it anyway?! The Marines were being shredded all through the Pacific campaign. Why, if you contend that they were ready to use these weapons, didn't they??

And bub, in WWI the US suffered more casualties in one year of fighting on the western front than Canada over the course of the war.

Do some research first. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.

[assoholic]

..um yes those were the less fortified ones, perhaps you should actually pick up a book or two. Except for Okinawa of course, but that was right on Japans doorstep.

[Ranger68]

LOL
Dude, I'm done with you.
Do some reading.
Then come back and try to defend your assertions.
Again, if they had these weapons, and were prepared to use them, *why didn't they*, during the long, arduous crawl of amphibious invasions through the Pacific?

It's clear you have very limited knowledge of WWI and WWII history.

[assoholic]

..back to my original point , War is Hell, both sides commit attrocities, Americans included, thats why running around the world starting wars is such a bad thing, especially when you lie about why you started them.

[Ranger68]

Name all the more heavily fortified places the US bypassed.

[Ranger68]

Still waiting.

And also still waiting for defense of the assertion that the US was a "junior partner" in WWI, despite suffering more casualties than Canada and contributing about SEVEN TIMES more men to the fighting than we did, in one short year of war. (Yes, you were wrong about us having a larger army.)

[Ranger68]

Yeah, like I thought. No reply.
I'll give you more time to Google something germane to the discussion.
LOL

[assoholic]

..ya I am going to spen several hours looking up all the names of the Japanese held islands they bypassed, the fact that you do not even know this was a major part of MacArthurs strategy tells me you know knothing, as for WW1, junior in comparison to France and Britain.

[Ranger68]

Like I thought.
You've got nothing.
Thanks for playing, though.

[Ranger68]

Folks, I'll say it again.

The US was the ONLY major combatant NOT to use chemical weapons during WWI. To propose that the US was prepared to use chemical weapons on the Japanese populace to support an invasion of the homeland is preposterous.

As far as the history of imperial powers goes, the US has been the MOST BENIGN by far - exercising the most judicious use of power BY FAR.
This, perhaps, is somewhat akin to saying that the Son of Sam was the nicest mass murderer in history, but there it is.
If you're going to criticize US foreign policy, *in toto*, you'd better be prepared to look at the histories of all the other great powers in history.

This is not a defense of W, whose actions in Iraq are baffling, at best. But, as has been mentioned in other threads, to talk of an Iraqi *genocide*, or to assert that Americans are idiots for voting for him, is just absurd.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
*sigh* Glad you're missing the point.

No, I got the point just fine the first time, thanks. As I said I wasn't interested in what you and Don were bickering about, just your assertion that the 101st "didn't really do much ass-kicking". Sorry, but you're wrong. The Germans who attacked them suffered far worse.

[Ranger68]

Actually, not to put to fine a point on things, but to claim that the 101st but a beating on *three German divisions* is false. They were repeatedly attacked by artillery and infantry from Panzer Lehr, but after the first day, the armour of that division had moved on. I have not seen your number of *200* armoured vehicles destroyed by the 101st ANYWHERE, and find it very hard to believe actually, since they were NOT prepared for attacks by armoured vehicles. (Not to mention the fact that Panzer Lehr, to my knowledge, almost certainly couldn't have MUSTERED this number at the outset of the battle.)

If you could give me a source for this, I'd be more tempted to believe it.

Anyway, I think beyond that we are the semantics of "ass-kicking".

[Ranger68]

Asterix,
If you are talking about losses inflicted on the enemy by *attached elements* - specifically, elements of the 9th and 10th Armoured Division, quite a number of unrelated artillery units thrown in ad hoc, the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion, and numerous engineering units - all of whom were better equipped (or equipped at all) to fight off an armoured assault - then we're on the same page.
Then again, in light of these attached elements, to attribute the defense of Bastogne to the 101st Airborne alone would be pretty unfair, considering that they would almost certainly have been overrun without these units. In fact, the Americans came very close to *evacuating* the 101st, but were unable to follow up on the order due to the fact that events had outstripped their abilities to react to them - namely, Bastogne was already surrounded.

Fact is, the 101st held Bastogne against very long odds, and got the crap beaten out of it in the process. Other units also defending rang up a heavy toll of the German assaults.

[langeweile]

Don

PS: a student mouthed off to him. He put the student through
the blackboard. End of disciplinary problems for 4 years.
Bill Gutbrod was his name. What a man! That's why I volunteered
for the 101st, the Screaming Eagles. [/B][/QUOTE]

I wish we had more teachers like that. There has been one true success for the D's, the hijacking of our education system.
History has given way to a lecture on condoms and arithmetic has given way to "Mary has two moms". Shit.
The greatest asset of a country is it's people. To educate them well, is the best thing a society can do.
Knowledge is power.

[langeweile]

I am not talking about money. I am talking about philosophy.
I suugest you go back and look at a curiculum of our founding fathers.
While i am not sure we all need to be able to read Cicero in it's original, but between that and what is being taught today, there has to be something better.
I had the luxury of being educated in Germany. Americans are being short changed when it comes to education. Unless you have the money to go an elite school.
If i compare the level of instruction ad the amount of homework of my niece and my own children I get worried. They are so far ahead of our children. canada is not much better than the USA in that regard.
No my argument is not bogus. As always it comes from personal experience.

[onthebottom]

For those with long attention spans there are many sources for the heroics of the 101 in WWII, for those ADD readers I'd suggest Band of Brothers on DVD. Common men doing uncommon things - the greatest generation indeed!

But I'm sure in the 40s there were some short sighted people saying that the war in Europe was none of our business and that Germany was no threat to the US.

OTB

[clipper]

Well OTB, the people in the US not wanting to get involved in WWII Europe were the "right wingers".

My original point was not to debate the morality of war, but to say that the American electorate apparently doesn't take the Iraq war very seriously, according to the exit polls.

Or perhaps they could not distinguish a difference in the way the Iraq war would be conducted by the D's or R's.

Obviously though, the R's will pursue the use of force to cause further regime change. This will be very much a "US only" campaign.

This is much more significant in my view, at least, than gays
getting married. The 17% youth turnout also casts a long shadow over US democracy.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by clipper
Well OTB, the people in the US not wanting to get involved in WWII Europe were the "right wingers".

Good point. And let's not forget it was the looney leftists who courageously opened the first (if ineffective) front against European fascism in Spain, including the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion from Canada and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade from the States, while conservative voices for the most part adopted sentiments that ranged from appeasement to isolationism to outright collaborationism.


My original point was not to debate the morality of war, but to say that the American electorate apparently doesn't take the Iraq war very seriously, according to the exit polls.


Yes, but I think the media is making way, way too much out of these exit polls, which are models of untrustworthiness. They were the same ones that predicted a huge win for Kerry in the early hours of the election.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Asterix,
If you are talking about losses inflicted on the enemy by *attached elements* - specifically, elements of the 9th and 10th Armoured Division, quite a number of unrelated artillery units thrown in ad hoc, the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion, and numerous engineering units - all of whom were better equipped (or equipped at all) to fight off an armoured assault - then we're on the same page.

Yes, I think we're pretty much on the same page. It was what I thought was your earlier dismission of the 101st that got me started. Perhaps I misinterpreted.

Thermopylae? I don't think so. A more apt comparison would be Buford outside of Gettysburg.

[someone]

Originally posted by langeweile
I had the luxury of being educated in Germany. Americans are being short changed when it comes to education. Unless you have the money to go an elite school.
If i compare the level of instruction ad the amount of homework of my niece and my own children I get worried. They are so far ahead of our children. canada is not much better than the USA in that regard.
No my argument is not bogus. As always it comes from personal experience.

I've taught students in both Canadian and American universities and I would say that the situation in Canada is not nearly as bad as the situation in the U.S. The only parts of Canada were the
education system comes close to being as bad as the U.S. is the
Atlantic proveinces. Even in the Atlantic provinces, I don't think the high schools are as bad.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
I've taught students in both Canadian and American universities and I would say that the situation in Canada is not nearly as bad as the situation in the U.S. The only parts of Canada were the
education system comes close to being as bad as the U.S. is the
Atlantic proveinces. Even in the Atlantic provinces, I don't think the high schools are as bad.



As an educator, how much responsiblity do you take for the system you work within?

[Asterix]

Originally posted by papasmerf
As an educator, how much responsiblity do you take for the system you work within?

Good question. Let's ask another. As an employee, how much power over finances or how things are run, do you imagine he has?

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
As an educator, how much responsiblity do you take for the system you work within?

As you likely know, teaching is only part of the job of an academic. The teaching part of the job can be held against you but it will rarely help your career. Nonetheless, I do try to do my best and try to take and active role when it comes to program development, etc.

However, my post was meant to refer to the to the high school systems and my observations of them based on how well they prepare students for university. When I get first year students totally unprepared for university (e.g. students with grade 12 math who cannot preform basic operations), I generally don't take any responsiblity other than offering help when they ask for it and refering them for remedial help at various help centers in the university. In the end, we are requried to adjust grades so that many unqualified students pass. I think this is a mistake as it hides the problems with the high school systems. I think that if we were more honest and failed more unprepared first year students, it would create political pressure to improve the highschool system. However, doing so alone would do no good and hurt my career. Still, I try to do what I can to keep standards up.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Asterix
Good question. Let's ask another. As an employee, how much power over finances or how things are run, do you imagine he has?

Easy amswer
as an employee
I am one of the fisrt people a customer sees. My attitude, profesionalism and ability affects the customers opinion of the company. If i do a good cost effective job it will generate repeat business. If i do a less than par job and the customer is left with a substandard product, we loose a customer. In the real world people expect things to work and jobs they pay for to be done right.

It seems in education we makes excuses so we can accept less than excellent work from educators. Granted every student has a different learning factor. BUT when they hit the real world 100% is what is expected of them.

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Easy amswer
as an employee
I am one of the fisrt people a customer sees. My attitude, profesionalism and ability affects the customers opinion of the company. If i do a good cost effective job it will generate repeat business. If i do a less than par job and the customer is left with a substandard product, we loose a customer. In the real world people expect things to work and jobs they pay for to be done right.

It seems in education we makes excuses so we can accept less than excellent work from educators. Granted every student has a different learning factor. BUT when they hit the real world 100% is what is expected of them.

Actually,I think that seeing students as customers is half the problem with the education system. The more students universities accept and don't fail in first year, the greater the revenues from government and tuition. Moreover, in provinces with one university, the government can put added pressure on it not to criticize the highschool system. Offending customers is never a good business practice, whether that customer is the government paying the big bills or students paying part of the cost

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by clipper
Well OTB, the people in the US not wanting to get involved in WWII Europe were the "right wingers".

My original point was not to debate the morality of war, but to say that the American electorate apparently doesn't take the Iraq war very seriously, according to the exit polls.

Or perhaps they could not distinguish a difference in the way the Iraq war would be conducted by the D's or R's.

Obviously though, the R's will pursue the use of force to cause further regime change. This will be very much a "US only" campaign.

This is much more significant in my view, at least, than gays
getting married. The 17% youth turnout also casts a long shadow over US democracy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your point about their being no difference between how Kerry or Bush would proceed in Iraq - thus it wasn't a decisive issue.

I disagree with you blanket statement that "Obviously though, the R's will pursue the use of force to cause further regime change. This will be very much a "US only" campaign." I actually think the experience in Iraq will make the moderates in the Bush administration more powerful (Powell was right - you break it you fix it), they won't be keen to fix it again alone.

OTB

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
Actually,I think that seeing students as customers is half the problem with the education system. The more students universities accept and don't fail in first year, the greater the revenues from government and tuition. Moreover, in provinces with one university, the government can put added pressure on it not to criticize the highschool system. Offending customers is never a good business practice, whether that customer is the government paying the big bills or students paying part of the cost


In the education system, the customer is the public and parents. And I agree that the don't fail process is part of the problem. Another huge part of the problem is the $275.00 per day per student that is considered handicaped, paid by NYS to the schools for hving the students. This winfall of cash brought about the school shrinks pushing ADHD and ADD as problems. Forced thousands of children on rittilin and later prozac and other durgs. The system is broken, from tenured teachers who have a job for life to the over abundance of administration is some districts. My bet though is teachers like doctors never move to remove the bad ones. Maybe if the system was a bit more regulated by concise standards we as the customer or taxpayer could weed out the ones just sucking societies milk and not giving in return.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Easy amswer
as an employee
I am one of the fisrt people a customer sees. My attitude, profesionalism and ability affects the customers opinion of the company. If i do a good cost effective job it will generate repeat business. If i do a less than par job and the customer is left with a substandard product, we loose a customer. In the real world people expect things to work and jobs they pay for to be done right.

It seems in education we makes excuses so we can accept less than excellent work from educators. Granted every student has a different learning factor. BUT when they hit the real world 100% is what is expected of them.

Yes, that is an easy answer.

In my company, if my employees came to me and told me they thought we needed more help or new equipment, I would tend to listen to them since they have been with me for years. But guess what, that costs money. I could just as easily tell them no, you're going to have to work harder with what you've got and their only real recourse would be to quit. They have no power over how I decide to finance the company, how many employees I have or what direction the company takes.

It continues to amaze me how teachers are made the whipping boy for what is wrong in education. The ones I know are some of the hardest working and most dedicated people I've ever met.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Asterix
Yes, that is an easy answer.

It continues to amaze me how teachers are made the whipping boy for what is wrong in education. The ones I know are some of the hardest working and most dedicated people I've ever met.

A teachers greatest tool is their ability to communicte on many levels. The books, computers and programs are aides to that ability.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by papasmerf
A teachers greatest tool is their ability to communicte on many levels. The books, computers and programs are aides to that ability.

Yes, and if there are not adequate tools, or enough teachers that are also adequately paid, we've got a problem.

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
In the education system, the customer is the public and parents.

By definition, customers are those writing the cheques. As far, as parents are concerned, few want to find out that their kids are not suited for university


Originally posted by papasmerf

The system is broken, from tenured teachers who have a job for life

To be honest with you, I am not familar with the day-to-day operations of highschools. However, in universities it is the tenured professors that are most able to criticize the system. I have very rarely seen those without tenure strongly criticize those who will be deciding on their contract renewals or tenure decissions.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
The US can't win the peace in Iraq.
It'll go down as our second 'Nam.

As I reflect back on the election I've come
to the conclusion I'd rather see Bush try to
clean up that terrible mess he created.

My sentiments exactly, and made the same comment a couple times last week. Bush should own the shit he started. History deserves no less.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
The US can't win the peace in Iraq.
It'll go down as our second 'Nam.

As I reflect back on the election I've come
to the conclusion I'd rather see Bush try to
clean up that terrible mess he created.
The mission will go down as a terrible mistake.

I don't take any pleasure in seeing US fail in Iraq.
First and foremost I'm an American. It will be a terrible
defeat for all of US. It's like OTB's saying: Beware of what
you wish for. Kerry would have been hammered had he won.
Since the Rs control the legislature and POTUS they will
have to bear the burden of this bungling mission. They won't
be able to pass the buck, which they're so good at.

Let's see how diplomatic and professional the Rs are in
a couple years. Let's revisit their excellence in government then. :p

The glass half empty if you're wishing the country well, the glass half full if you're a Liberal D hack.

We can only hope this is a accurate as DQ's election predictions and his threat to leave the country if Bush won.

Another Vietnam - geez, you should know better you were there. I visited the Vietnam memorial for the first time last week (election night actually) and was incredibly moved - all those names and nothing gained, it really hit me hard.

Remember DQ, there is only one force that can beat the US military, that is the US left. Perhaps the American people figured this out and kept the right guys in to finish the job.

OTB

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
By definition, customers are those writing the cheques. As far, as parents are concerned, few want to find out that their kids are not suited for university



To be honest with you, I am not familar with the day-to-day operations of highschools. However, in universities it is the tenured professors that are most able to criticize the system. I have very rarely seen those without tenure strongly criticize those who will be deciding on their contract renewals or tenure decissions.



I agree the best way to improve the system is have the parents more involved. BUT I suspect few teachers would embraces that.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Remember DQ, there is only one force that can beat the US military, that is the US left. Perhaps the American people figured this out and kept the right guys in to finish the job.

OTB

That's right, DQ. Remember, the VietCong had nothing to do with the loss in Vietnam. It was all of you pot-smoking unpatriotic hippies. Just like inability to adapt to the realities of asymetrical warfare will have nothing to do with intransigence in the military beauracracy or incompetence in the executive branch - it will be because of the negative vibes coming from you damn flower-snorting, granola-crunching, sandal-wearing - did I mention you were unpatriotic? - hippies.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Please understand. I don't want to see it happen.
But Rumsfeld, Bremmer et al. screwed it up so badly
that all the kings horses and all the king's can't put
this fractured mess back together again. You and me
and all of US will pay a price for this mistaken mission.

We have very few options and none of those are good.

Why must you play this divisive game of left and right with me.
Truman said "The buck stops here." Kennedy took responsibility
for the Bay of Pigs debacle. Why can't you say you made a mistake
when you make a mistake. I thought the Rs are big on personal
responsibility. If you're going to talk the talk you'd better walk
the walk. How could the left be responsible for a war in Iraq.
I thought the Rs controlled the house and senate.

Already looking for scapegoats.
I sense that you're as concerned as me but you're using bluster
to cover your behind. You know we can't win this war for the
same reason we couldn't win in 'Nam. The VietNamese people
saw the government in Saigon as an American puppet. The same
thing is going on in Iraq. We had superior force and destroyed both
the NVA and VC, but we didn't have the support of the people.
They didn't want us there destroying their country with our
military might.

Know your enemy and know yourself and you'll win every war.
We didn't know and understand the VietNamese people. Likewise,
we don't know and understand the Iraqi people. :(

Don.

I think the destroying their country with our military phase is largely behind us, with elections in January the Iraqi government becomes more and more credible.

OTB

[Garrett]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I think the destroying their country with our military phase is largely behind us, with elections in January the Iraqi government becomes more and more credible.

OTB

It will be interesting. The appointed government is a joke. However, I do not see how the elections can be totally free. The US needs someone that will improve things, and it is not clear to me that going from Saddam to a theocracy would be a good move.

How does the US prevent a theocracy?

[Sargon]

Originally posted by Garrett
How does the US prevent a theocracy?

By contolling the outcome of the elections (I'm not trying to be funny).

[danmand]

Originally posted by Sargon
By contolling the outcome of the elections (I'm not trying to be funny).

Democracy is really a godsend to the Iraqi people.

Now, how do we avoid the US becoming a theocracy?

[Asterix]

Originally posted by danmand

Now, how do we avoid the US becoming a theocracy?

It isn't even close to that, and likely never will be. You could make a far better argument that the US has lost it's democratic roots and is becoming an oligarchy.

[gala]

Certainly it's more theocratic than Canada is; but it's nowhere close to being an Iran. Still--there are segments of the US that are just so backwards, like Ohio adding creationism to the curriculum. The current administration has also actively interfered with scientific studies where the conclusions seemed to be at odds with policy. That's troubling. (In particular in the realm of the environment they've been doing that--practically requiring scientists to rewrite their conclusions to make it sound like there's a controversy in order to get continued funding grants.)

[Cobra1]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
That's right, DQ. Remember, the VietCong had nothing to do with the loss in Vietnam. It was all of you pot-smoking unpatriotic hippies. Just like inability to adapt to the realities of asymetrical warfare will have nothing to do with intransigence in the military beauracracy or incompetence in the executive branch - it will be because of the negative vibes coming from you damn flower-snorting, granola-crunching, sandal-wearing - did I mention you were unpatriotic? - hippies.

Well said.

[danmand]

Guerrilla forces defending their own territory will, given enough time, repell an invasion force. History has shown that.

[Ranger68]

That's not true in every instance. Not remotely.

[danmand]

Sorry, I should have included, "if they have the support of the people".

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by danmand
Sorry, I should have included, "if they have the support of the people".

Well, even then. No insurgent army had much success against the Nazis.

[Ranger68]

I think those terms are so vague that the discussion isn't really useful. And I don't think, even in general terms, that it's that solid a proposition.

[someone]

Originally posted by gala
Certainly it's more theocratic than Canada is; but it's nowhere close to being an Iran.

I spend a year teaching at a liberal arts college in Kentucky. I had an international student from Jordon who said that he had "thought Jordon was religious until he came to Kentucky�. The U.S. may not be Iran yet, but I can’t think of another western country were religion plays such a big role. When you are not used to it, the U.S. south (and many do not even consider KY to be a southern state) is a real shock. I also spent a bit of time in Odessa, Texas and found it to be even worse.

[Goober Mcfly]

I consider KY to be a fabulous lubricant.

[wrong hole]

I perfer astro glide.....reminds me of the astro boy cartoons...he always had that shine to him

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by someone
... student from Jordon who said that he had "thought Jordon was religious until he came to Kentucky�. The U.S. may not be Iran yet, but I can’t think of another western country were religion plays such a big role. ...

Thank god for the Jewish girl ... now I am "saved" ...

Damn ... did anyone else get wood when she was taken over by "Jesus" and moaned about her "hot pussy"?

Yeah the US south sure loves their "Jesus".

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0332375/

Hey all I know is what I see in the "movies", just like most "good" north Americans. :p

[langeweile]

The US constitution provides a clear seperation of church and state. This however does not forbid anyone from proclaiming his faith or used it as a campaign issue. This law also allows for anybody to vote for whomever he/she thinks.

IMHO in my humble opinion goverment should not provide any funding for any organization that promotes as a core value.
Having said that I have real trouble denying funding to religous groups that do valueble charity work.

It would be real ironic, that a country that was partially founded as an escape from religous prosecution, would turn theocratic.
I don't believe this would happen. There is a need however to address certain issues. Like "One nation under God".

[danmand]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Well, even then. No insurgent army had much success against the Nazis.

Yugoslavia, Greece are notable cases

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Selina
Here's one for you, OTB:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm



WWW.SINFULSELINA.HAS.IT

Thanks, bookmarked it - a good reminder of the price being paid.

OTB

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
Yugoslavia, Greece are notable cases

Really? How much success did they have against the Germans? They caused more civilians to be killed in retaliation than they killed German soldiers.
Bad examples. The Germans didn't go anywhere.

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by bbking
Well that's going to cost you several decades in pergatory.

bbk
Yeah I am going to hell in a handbasket. But at least all my friends and all the horny chicks (with "hot pussies") will be there. :p

On another note:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

Kinda sad ... But for every gun totin', "shoot 'em eyerackiee tararists up real good", winner there's got to be a loser!

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by tompeepin
Yeah I am going to hell in a handbasket. But at least all my friends and all the horny chicks (with "hot pussies") will be there. :p

On another note:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

Kinda sad ... But for every gun totin', "shoot 'em eyerackiee tararists up real good", winner there's got to be a loser!



WOW that link is filled with a bunch of sorry people

oh yea they are also a bunch of looser backers too.

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by bbking
uhhh Tom - there is no sex in purgatory - a Catholic thing


bbk
SHIT @#(%)* !!! NOW I am really FUCKED! ... or NOT! :mad:

[danmand]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Really? How much success did they have against the Germans? They caused more civilians to be killed in retaliation than they killed German soldiers.
Bad examples. The Germans didn't go anywhere.

Really, last I heard, they left (at least for a while)!

[assoholic]

,,in recent history the only two Guerilla Wars to be defeated were by the Americans in the Phillipines after the Spanish American War and the British in Burma.
Marines actually published a hand guide to fighting a succesful geurella war. It was totally ignored in Nam and once again in Iraq. You cannot defeat a Guerilla army with conventioal methods.
The problem is that in the guide it talks about placing a few marines in every village/town/city. That takes alot of guts to do.
As well I might add taking Nam as an example they could have put a few marines in every single hamlet in Vietnam and still not reached the totals they did, so it is numerically possible.
That way the marines and the locals bound, instead of just comeing into a place and blowing the place up.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
uhhh Tom - there is no sex in purgatory - a Catholic thing


bbk

Old joke alert:

Tompeepin dies and goes to hell, he looks a bit disappointed so the devil goes over and says "what’s wrong you'll love it here" TP says "I doubt it"

the devil says "do you like drugs"
TP "yes"
devil " that's great cause on Monday all we do is drugs, heroin, cocaine what ever you like, do as much as you like and hey - you're dead so what can happen"
TP "great"

devil "do you like to drink?"
TP " as much as the next guy"
devil " great, we drink all day on Tuesday, we get the best stuff and you know what - no hangover because you're dead" TP "whoa"

devil "do you like to smoke"
TP "I've been know to drag the occasional Cuban from time to time"
devil "great, guess what we do on Wednesdays"
TP "I might just like it down here"
devil " I told you so"

devil " are you gay"
TP "no"
devil "you may not like Thursdays"

OTB

[tompeepin]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Old joke alert:

devil " are you gay"
TP "no"
devil "you may not like Thursdays"

OTB
What do ya mean? I love fudge packing Thursdays! :eek: I just hate salad tossing Fridays.

But you left out the most important part. What day do I get to bang the smokin' chicks with the "hot pussies"? Saturday and Sunday, right? Oh yeah! Muff divin' here I cum ...

[someone]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Really? How much success did they have against the Germans? They caused more civilians to be killed in retaliation than they killed German soldiers.
Bad examples. The Germans didn't go anywhere.

My understanding was that they tied up a lot of german troops that would otherwise have been on the front lines. Thus, the fact that the "Germans didn't go anywhere" was the sucess.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by assoholic
,,in recent history the only two Guerilla Wars to be defeated were by the Americans in the Phillipines after the Spanish American War and the British in Burma.
Marines actually published a hand guide to fighting a succesful geurella war. It was totally ignored in Nam and once again in Iraq. You cannot defeat a Guerilla army with conventioal methods.
The problem is that in the guide it talks about placing a few marines in every village/town/city. That takes alot of guts to do.
As well I might add taking Nam as an example they could have put a few marines in every single hamlet in Vietnam and still not reached the totals they did, so it is numerically possible.
That way the marines and the locals bound, instead of just comeing into a place and blowing the place up.

No guerilla actions in any of the Nazi occupied countries of World War II did much of anything to discomfit them, including Greece and Yugoslavia, which you mentioned. It took the arrival of the Soviets to drive them out of the Balkans.

I think you'd actually be harder pressed to show examples where guerilla armies have *succesfully driven out* invaders. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are good examples, for different reasons.

Your contention that you cannot defeat a guerilla army with conventional means is circular - what you really mean to say is that it's difficult to achieve *conventional* victory against an *unconventional* foe.

The history of guerilla and partisan activity is a very black one. Extremely little good has ever come of such deeds.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
Really, last I heard, they left (at least for a while)!

They were driven out by the arrival of Soviet and Allied forces at their doorstep.

Last I heard .....
:rolleyes:

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by someone
My understanding was that they tied up a lot of german troops that would otherwise have been on the front lines. Thus, the fact that the "Germans didn't go anywhere" was the sucess.

In fact, this is totally wrong. Even in Yugoslavia, which is usually held up as the shining example of the kind of chaos that can be raised by partisan and guerilla insurgency behind the lines, the Germans only ever committed ONE front-line division which would otherwise have seen combat action on the eastern or western front. The units used to put down the uprisings were "ethnic" security units of practically no value anywhere else but putting down civil disorder in a brutal manner. A total of twenty divisions were employed by the Germans in this manner in ALL OCCUPIED COUNTRIES during WWII.

What's overlooked is the FACT of brutal retaliation by these security forces against non-partisan civilians. In essence, the civilians were punished for transgressions of a small number of partisan warriors. One should consider whether the "tying down" of a scant number of brutal security divisions was worth the outright slaughter of thousands of civilians who would otherwise have survived Nazi occupation.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by Ranger68
In fact, this is totally wrong. Even in Yugoslavia, which is usually held up as the shining example of the kind of chaos that can be raised by partisan and guerilla insurgency behind the lines, the Germans only ever committed ONE front-line division which would otherwise have seen combat action on the eastern or western front. The units used to put down the uprisings were "ethnic" security units of practically no value anywhere else but putting down civil disorder in a brutal manner. A total of twenty divisions were employed by the Germans in this manner in ALL OCCUPIED COUNTRIES during WWII.

What's overlooked is the FACT of brutal retaliation by these security forces against non-partisan civilians. In essence, the civilians were punished for transgressions of a small number of partisan warriors. One should consider whether the "tying down" of a scant number of brutal security divisions was worth the outright slaughter of thousands of civilians who would otherwise have survived Nazi occupation.

I agree with all this, but at the same time let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that these divisions would have been lying idle - they would have found other victims elsewhere. And the invasion of Russia demonstrates the SS rear-guard needed precious little provocation for brutality.

[Ranger68]

Well, most of these divisions were PUT TOGETHER to deal with insurgencies in the Balkans. There were already plenty of other security units in occupied territories in other countries. These divisions were cobbled together on an ad hoc basis as security necessitated. Many of these men would otherwise not have even been under arms in the "German army".

There is little doubt among many modern military historians that TENS OF THOUSANDS of civilians paid the price for partisan activity against the Nazis. To argue that a similar number of civilians would have been killed anyway is, I think, disingenuous.

[someone]

You may be right about Yugoslavia as this is pretty far outside my area of expertise. However, I would think that many of the officers would have been Germans who would have otherwise been in front line units.


Originally posted by Ranger68
I think you'd actually be harder pressed to show examples where guerilla armies have *succesfully driven out* invaders. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are good examples, for different reasons.


How would you respond to Ireland as an example? Admittedly, terrorism is not exactly the same as a guerilla army but it is also true that the distinction is not completely clear. They did manage to get the British out (or at least make staying not worth the cost)

[Ranger68]

I think Ireland is more like, say, India - colonial holdings that the ex-masters couldn't justify holding onto. It's not like they weren't there for a thousand years or so - that is, I think someone would be hard-pressed to say that the guerilla insurgency in Ireland finally pushed out the Brits.

And, with regards to your first comment, most of the officers of those security units wouldn't have held down positions in combat units of any kind - they weren't fit to serve in regular units of the Wehrmacht.

[assoholic]

..first off I was wrong it was the Brittish in Malaysia. Second , Kenya , the Congo , all the wars of Liberation against Colonial masters includeing Nam.
When the entire people are united against a foriegn occupier, using conventional methods of attack, armour supported by infantry and air exct, will not work. As Faluja has once more demonstrated. All thery really did was kill a few, blow up the city and enerage hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.
As the insurgents actually kidnapped some of Allawis relatives and will execute them.
I am hardly an expert but once again the US military is starting to look silly with all their big pronouncements, then coming back with 10 bodies.Shades of Nam all over again.

[Ranger68]

First off, I don't think these wars of liberation were necessarily successful unto themselves - the old colonial masters were ridding themselves of holdings all over the world, with or without bloodshed. In which of these countries were conventional forces defeated regularly, either tactically or strategically? (Just as an example, in Viet Nam, the Americans were practically never defeated tactically, but strategically lost the war.)

And, just so we're on the same page, we're not talking about the *Americans* as the old colonial masters in Viet Nam, right? It was the French - who'd already been defeated.

Yep - Afghanistan and Viet Nam. And there are good reasons for both, aside from "guerilla warfare trumps conventional warfare". I'm not sure there are any more good examples. There are plenty of COUNTER-examples, though.

Again, I don't think ANY of those "wars of Liberation against Colonial masters" were examples of guerilla armies defeating conventional armies.

I'm not sure what Fallujah has demonstrated - I don't think anybody does, yet. But, just so you're caught up, the Americans are on the verge of driving the vast majority of the already combatant insurgents out.

The US will withdraw from Iraq. It's hard to call what the US did from Viet Nam "withdrawal".

[Peeping Tom]

I urge you to keep in mind that Vietnam was nothing about colonial masters. Vietnam was a Cold War battle fought using various proxies and, by necessity, there was a fine line which crossing may have precipitated a nuclear shambles. Thus, the ROE and expectations / accomplishments are of a different order and more complicated to assess.

For all the hoopalah raised by the left in their absurd Vietnam comparisons, realize this: America won Vietnam. America won when the wall came down - this event was the end result, the realized totality of decades of proxy and other forms of warfare.


Originally posted by Ranger68

And, just so we're on the same page, we're not talking about the *Americans* as the old colonial masters in Viet Nam, right? It was the French - who'd already been defeated.

[Peeping Tom]

Yes. I know someone who was involved. The method was to conscript in region A and then deploy in region B, where there was plenty of mutual hatreds. That was a brilliant strategy, evil unfortunately, but savagely brilliant.


Originally posted by Ranger68
The units used to put down the uprisings were "ethnic" security units of practically no value anywhere else but putting down civil disorder in a brutal manner. A total of twenty divisions were employed by the Germans in this manner in ALL OCCUPIED COUNTRIES during WWII.

What's overlooked is the FACT of brutal retaliation by these security forces against non-partisan civilians. In essence, the civilians were punished for transgressions of a small number of partisan warriors. One should consider whether the "tying down" of a scant number of brutal security divisions was worth the outright slaughter of thousands of civilians who would otherwise have survived Nazi occupation. [/B]

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68


I'm not sure what Fallujah has demonstrated - I don't think anybody does, yet. But, just so you're caught up, the Americans are on the verge of driving the vast majority of the already combatant insurgents out.


To evidently fight another day. I'm a little surprised the US didn't make more of an effort to isolate the insurgents, and apparently let many of them slip out the back door, but maybe it does make sense. With the Iraqi election looming, the sceptic in me sees this as somewhat more of a political operation than a military one. If the US had chosen to seal the city completely off, and taken the insurgents street by street, it would have been a bloody mess, and a possible public relations disaster.

[danmand]

Originally posted by Peeping Tom
I urge you to keep in mind that Vietnam was nothing about colonial masters. Vietnam was a Cold War battle fought using various proxies and, by necessity, there was a fine line which crossing may have precipitated a nuclear shambles. Thus, the ROE and expectations / accomplishments are of a different order and more complicated to assess.

For all the hoopalah raised by the left in their absurd Vietnam comparisons, realize this: America won Vietnam. America won when the wall came down - this event was the end result, the realized totality of decades of proxy and other forms of warfare.


I am so relieved, that the US won the war in Vietnam (without being involved, because it was fought by proxy).

And I suppose that Germany won the 2nd world war, because it really was a war against the spread of communism.

Jeeeeez

[danmand]

Here we go again:

1. The US lost the war in Vietnam. Period.

2. The war in Vietnam was not a proxy war for anybody. The US was there in numbers, and the vietcong/north vietnamese were not proxies of anybody. They were vietnamese throwing out an invader like they did the french.

3. Actually, the nazis were serious about fighting the soviets, and could not understand why Britain and the US could not see that. They effectively foresaw the coming conflict between the soviets and the west, and many of them fought that war too on the western side.

This is a flush, BB

[danmand]

Neo-nazi propaganda!

You just managed, against all odds, to out-idiotize yourself again. To the moon, BB, to the moon.

PS: "The rise and fall of the third Reich" is a good first book for you to read.

[Peace4u]

This is going to be a bad 4 years for the United States,could be a disaster.Tough times are ahead unless you are extremely rich.Bush has no kindness toward those that are disadvantaged.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Peace4u
This is going to be a bad 4 years for the United States,could be a disaster.Tough times are ahead unless you are extremely rich.Bush has no kindness toward those that are disadvantaged.

This is just BS.

The difference between D's and R's in their approach to the disadvantaged is this.
The D's are continuing to give the Fish, while the R' are trying to teach the guy how to fish.
Big difference in philosophy.

[Peeping Tom]

Saying this demonstrates that you have zero understanding of politics. I suggest you remain in the camp of argumentum ad hominum.




2. The war in Vietnam was not a proxy war for anybody. The US was there in numbers, and the vietcong/north vietnamese were not proxies of anybody. They were vietnamese throwing out an invader like they did the french.

[Peeping Tom]

Hitler's military strategy followed a path of expediency (as all effective staregies must). Ribbentrop's deal with Molotov fractured his opponents at a critical time. The long term vision remained in the conquest of Russia for territorial, not ideological, reasons. This was stated clearly from the beginning of Mein Kampf and often repeated.

The ideological component laid within German politics of the time. Hitler did indeed smash bolshevism on the home front by integrating the socialist aims into his brand of politics. This was largely successful due to the KPD's following of the official party line, which held that National Socialism was reactionary and would fail of its own accord (which is very comparable to Kerry's campaign).

Hitler did foresee the Cold War in WW2's dying days - not surprising given his political genius. National Socialism cannot lay claim to any part of the Cold War outcome, as this theatre developed as a consquence of the end of WW2.


Originally posted by bbking

Hitler signed a very famous non-aggression pact with Stalin at the beginning of that war and only broke it when it became clear that Germany could not get a route to mid-east oil via North Africa. Hitler's invasion of Russia was to get a hold of Russian oil fields - one only needs to see the initial invasion push to see this.

[...]

p.s. yes Hitler was anti-communists his parties ideology would demand it - but it was more focused on the German Communist/socialist parties [/B]

[red]

four more years- thats how long this thread will last

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand

3. Actually, the nazis were serious about fighting the soviets, and could not understand why Britain and the US could not see that. They effectively foresaw the coming conflict between the soviets and the west, and many of them fought that war too on the western side.

This is a flush, BB

You're kidding, right? Hitler was all about the growing Soviet threat!?
LOL
Oh, mercy.
Anywhoo ....
Yes, Hitler hated the Soviets. That having been said, his FIRST task was subduing the French and British. To say that "they effectively foresaw the coming conflict between the soviets and the west" is to ignore the rather large fact that THEY HELPED CREATE IT!
Goodness.
Hitler was all about *the Third Reich*.

[Peace4u]

Originally posted by Asterix
To evidently fight another day. I'm a little surprised the US didn't make more of an effort to isolate the insurgents, and apparently let many of them slip out the back door, but maybe it does make sense. With the Iraqi election looming, the sceptic in me sees this as somewhat more of a political operation than a military one. If the US had chosen to seal the city completely off, and taken the insurgents street by street, it would have been a bloody mess, and a possible public relations disaster. Maybe if the U.S had not tipped there hand and gave advanced warning we may have Zakawe who has beheaded alot of people and caught more terrorists.Complete stupidity.Thankyou MR. Bush another great job.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Peeping Tom
Hitler's military strategy followed a path of expediency (as all effective staregies must). Ribbentrop's deal with Molotov fractured his opponents at a critical time. The long term vision remained in the conquest of Russia for territorial, not ideological, reasons. This was stated clearly from the beginning of Mein Kampf and often repeated.

The ideological component laid within German politics of the time. Hitler did indeed smash bolshevism on the home front by integrating the socialist aims into his brand of politics. This was largely successful due to the KPD's following of the official party line, which held that National Socialism was reactionary and would fail of its own accord (which is very comparable to Kerry's campaign).

Hitler did foresee the Cold War in WW2's dying days - not surprising given his political genius. National Socialism cannot lay claim to any part of the Cold War outcome, as this theatre developed as a consquence of the end of WW2.

Churchill and many others also foresaw the Cold War at the end of WWII. I don't think it took a political genius to do this. The Nazis helped create the playing table, though, laying the basis for an iron curtain across Europe.

[onthebottom]

I've been waiting for Goober to invoke the rule that closes a thread when it resolves to wwii rehash.

OTB

[danmand]

Originally posted by Peeping Tom
Saying this demonstrates that you have zero understanding of politics. I suggest you remain in the camp of argumentum ad hominum.

OK, You are stupid!

[danmand]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I've been waiting for Goober to invoke the rule that closes a thread when it resolves to wwii rehash.

OTB

There are so many good reasons for closing this thread.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by langeweile
This is just BS.

The difference between D's and R's in their approach to the disadvantaged is this.
The D's are continuing to give the Fish, while the R' are trying to teach the guy how to fish.
Big difference in philosophy.

Oh boy, simplistic cliche time. Let's not forget, "a rising tide lifts all boats" and "the trickle down effect". Too bad I had to sell the boat, and will someone please tell that rich guy to stop trickling on me.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Asterix
Oh boy, simplistic cliche time. Let's not forget, "a rising tide lifts all boats" and "the trickle down effect". Too bad I had to sell the boat, and will someone please tell that rich guy to stop trickling on me.





Not all problems require a large department to oversee the distribution of funds.

The sale of your boat does not preclude you from shore fishing, wading or even dare I say it fish with a friend.


RICH IN TRUCKING????????????

Are you kidding me the small business ower in trucking is pretty well screwed between fuel and road taxes, insurences, bonds, wage taxes, uniemployment ins., compensation ins., sales tax quaterly perdictions vechicle maintanence, overtime, slow paying customers and did I mention fuel costs?

Damn roll another one and keep looking at the MAN as the opressor and not the one that enables the working stiff a living

[red]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Not all problems require a large department to oversee the distribution of funds.

The sale of your boat does not preclude you from shore fishing, wading or even dare I say it fish with a friend.


RICH IN TRUCKING????????????

Are you kidding me the small business ower in trucking is pretty well screwed between fuel and road taxes, insurences, bonds, wage taxes, uniemployment ins., compensation ins., sales tax quaterly perdictions vechicle maintanence, overtime, slow paying customers and did I mention fuel costs?

Damn roll another one and keep looking at the MAN as the opressor and not the one that enables the working stiff a living

trucking? wtf are you talking about?

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by red
trucking? wtf are you talking about?


my bad
I had a brain fart on that
but stand by the costs of trucking

[red]

no problem. I thought I had too much weed today when I first read it.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by red
no problem. I thought I had too much weed today when I first read it.

na

damned speed reading

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Asterix
Oh boy, simplistic cliche time. Let's not forget, "a rising tide lifts all boats" and "the trickle down effect". Too bad I had to sell the boat, and will someone please tell that rich guy to stop trickling on me.

Yeah it was a bit of a cliche response.

The reality is ,that well intentioned social programs usually have more of an enabling effect, than a helping effect.
I support social programs to help people to get back on their feet. I don't support them if they enable people to better themselves.
I have instances within my own extended family, where one of my cousins is taking advantage of the system. She has not worked for the past ten years!!! Although she is perfectly capable and has a profession that is in demand.
Can you explain to me why Canada has almost 8% unemployment, yet in my place of work we can't hire enough people?
Something is wrong with this picture.

The USA has by no means a perfect social system, but if my alternative is a European mess,. NO THANKS.
In Germany you are better of being unemployed and moonlighting than to have a fulltime job. Unemployement benefits include full medical and continuos payments towards your staate pension plan???
Who pays for it? People like my mom, that never missed a day of work. The add insult to injury her taxrate exceeds 50%.

The same will happen in North America if we just through money at a problem in the hopes it will go away.

[someone]

Originally posted by Peace4u
Maybe if the U.S had not tipped there hand and gave advanced warning we may have Zakawe who has beheaded alot of people and caught more terrorists.Complete stupidity.Thankyou MR. Bush another great job.

Normally I would be the last to defend Bush but given the size of the operation and the need to ask the UK to redeploy, I don't see how they could not have given warning.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by someone
Normally I would be the last to defend Bush but given the size of the operation and the need to ask the UK to redeploy, I don't see how they could not have given warning.

You are absolutely right, Peace. Makes you question the value of such an operation in a war like this...

[Peeping Tom]

For one, you can't say National Socialism without saying socialism. Go read Mein Kampf to get an idea of what Hitler though about conservatives. Conservatism was the anathema of the Hitler movement, those that couldn't be won over. The socialist part of the NSDAP movement was very progressive - if it were presented objectively you would automatically think it was NDP policy. In this aspect National Socialism was 60 years ahead of its time.


Originally posted by bbking

Nazi etc were Conservative Nationalist movements which ideology wise is very at odds to Socialist/Communist ideology

[assoholic]

..rid themeselves, no I would disagree, realized at the end of WW2 with a restless population they could not hold them. Second ,just so that we are on the same page. The whole point of a guerilla War is to outlast your enemy. Of course I am not saying a guerilla army has ever defeated a conventiopnal army in the field, that is ludicrious. However they caused enough pain and hurt, Kenya , Algeria, exct that the European powers had no choice but to leave. Read about the Algerian War and tell me the French were not forced out after a vicious war oir tjhe Brittish in Kenya.No the US will never be defeated in Battle in a large action in the field, but they using these tactics they will never win over the population and will continueto be attacked and most importantly ambused on a daily basis.

[assoholic]

..the US Strategy in Fallujah was imbecilec, announce your comeing so they can booby trap the place , then after most of the bad guys leave, blow the place up. Right now as we speak children lay dying in the streets because the US will not let any help get through. Good strategy guys, I would say the people of fallujah will hate the US for the next 1,000 years, lets hope they can come up with something a little better for the rest of the country.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by assoholic
..the US Strategy in Fallujah was imbecilec, announce your comeing so they can booby trap the place , then after most of the bad guys leave, blow the place up. Right now as we speak children lay dying in the streets because the US will not let any help get through. Good strategy guys, I would say the people of fallujah will hate the US for the next 1,000 years, lets hope they can come up with something a little better for the rest of the country.

I don't think we can assume the stated objective was the real objective. If they were trying to trap the insurgents inside the city, either they didn't have enough troops, the plan was flawed, or it wasn't the objective in the first place. I get the impression the US was willing to settle for simply pushing most of the insurgents out of Fallujah, and not willing to risk the political fallout from a full scale attack. That the attack came almost entirely from one side of the city demonstrates they had no intention at encirclement, or realistically blocking the insurgents escape routes.

[assoholic]

..very good point, however then the bombing of the place was to say the least strange, if they really care about winning over the population. If they just wanted to push the bad guys out. However if their real hidden objective is to whip the population into a frenzy, then mission accomplished.

[Asterix]

I found it interesting how fast they pushed to take the city center, as if that was the objective. The US is trying hard to show they are in control before the proposed election. Hearts and minds will evidently come later. Meanwhile, the Iraqi security force has apparently abandoned Mosul en masse, leaving it to the US to deal with.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Not all problems require a large department to oversee the distribution of funds.

The sale of your boat does not preclude you from shore fishing, wading or even dare I say it fish with a friend.


RICH IN TRUCKING????????????

Are you kidding me the small business ower in trucking is pretty well screwed between fuel and road taxes, insurences, bonds, wage taxes, uniemployment ins., compensation ins., sales tax quaterly perdictions vechicle maintanence, overtime, slow paying customers and did I mention fuel costs?

Damn roll another one and keep looking at the MAN as the opressor and not the one that enables the working stiff a living

Geez papasmerf, lighten up a bit. I was poking fun at simplistic catch phrases trying to explain complex problems. You have a small business in trucking? Great. I truly hope it is successful. I have a small business myself, face all of the same problems you listed, and doubt either one of us would consider ourselves rich.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Asterix
Geez papasmerf, lighten up a bit. I was poking fun at simplistic catch phrases trying to explain complex problems. You have a small business in trucking? Great. I truly hope it is successful. I have a small business myself, face all of the same problems you listed, and doubt either one of us would consider ourselves rich.



Problem is the government takes a complex aproach to simple problems. Much of it is done to gorge themselfs on government cash. The example of giving a fish and teaching to fish, is the perfect example.

Here is another example. If you were to grow a garden and take the time and effort to make it weed free, with healthy fruits and veggies. Then after you pick the garden clean, someone comes to your door and takes 50% to give not to your neighbors, but to folks 700 miles away who would not grow a garden. Would you find this to be fair? Would you begin to think that if you wanted to give the fruits of your labor away, you might like to decide to whom and how? Or would you just accept that you must do as you are told and be happy you are allowed to give?


When it comes to taxes and a government growing out of control, came we ever be too serious?

[langeweile]

Originally posted by assoholic
..the US Strategy in Fallujah was imbecilec, announce your comeing so they can booby trap the place , then after most of the bad guys leave, blow the place up. Right now as we speak children lay dying in the streets because the US will not let any help get through. Good strategy guys, I would say the people of fallujah will hate the US for the next 1,000 years, lets hope they can come up with something a little better for the rest of the country.


If the USA would have had a full scale attack on Fallujah, thousands of innocent civilians would have died. It is a reall catch 22. If you don't give the civilians the chance to get out, you risk an even bigger backlash.
By anouncing your intentions "the top brass" of Al Quaeda is long gone. Sooner or later a decision has to be made as to the final goal of the war. It seems obvious that a large part of the population supports the insurgents and a large part of the population is not interested in "western style democracy". Is the USA to stay there and force it down their throats? Or give them a chance to have an election and live with whatever the outcome is?
I saw an interview with a former general on the Dennis Miller show, sorry can't remember his name. He said that for this type of chasing down and controlling insurgents, there are not enough troops on the ground. I tend to agree with him.
Why there was enough troops to get Saddam, this is a whole different ballgame.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by assoholic
..rid themeselves, no I would disagree, realized at the end of WW2 with a restless population they could not hold them. Second ,just so that we are on the same page. The whole point of a guerilla War is to outlast your enemy. Of course I am not saying a guerilla army has ever defeated a conventiopnal army in the field, that is ludicrious. However they caused enough pain and hurt, Kenya , Algeria, exct that the European powers had no choice but to leave. Read about the Algerian War and tell me the French were not forced out after a vicious war oir tjhe Brittish in Kenya.No the US will never be defeated in Battle in a large action in the field, but they using these tactics they will never win over the population and will continueto be attacked and most importantly ambused on a daily basis.

I've read plenty about all of these conflicts.
You're missing my point - that the Imperial powers were divesting themselves of holdings GLOBALLY, regardless of violence against them or not.

I'm not sure what your point about WWII was, but I'm sure it's wrong. ;) The Germans weren't badly troubled by partisan /' guerilla activity anywhere on any front.

[assoholic]

..I got your point I simply disagree, I think they wetre pressured into divesting because of the Guerilla activity or the percieved threat of Guerilla action in the future as was more the case with the Brittish in Palestine. On this point we will have to agree to disagree.

[Ranger68]

This is more a case of public pressure on large liberal democracies to disinvolve themselves in the affairs of other nations, especially when the military begins taking casualties.
At least in your WWII examples, your point is wrong.

[Ranger68]

No, they weren't. I've already dealt with this. Of the paltry number of divisions the Germans used for security in conquered countries - 20 - only one would have been used elsewhere. The rest were scraped together as needed, made up mostly of "ethnics" (that is, non-Aryans), and would *not* have seen combat action on any other fronts.
They were NOT bothered by these groups.
These groups caused more innocent civilians to be killed in retaliation for action against the Wehrmacht than they killed or drew off German soldiers.
Both John Keegan and Caleb Carr, among numerous others, have written on the dramatic (thanks, Hollywood) exaggeration of the effect both the partisans and SOE forces had during WWII.