The Incongruity of It All

[WS-G]

Obama's aide is comparing Slick Willie to Joe McCarthy???

http://www.msnbc.com/id/23755939

I'm tempted to say it's like the pot calling the kettle.... uh.... Red! :confused:

[Parajuevos]

I don't like the Clintons and I don't like Obama. I think they are all full of character flaws. However, I think that General McPeak is stretching it.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Obama and his surrogates are exceedingly thin skinned, as his facade of sainthood gets peeled away.

[MPCOA]

I don't like the Clintons and I don't like Obama. I think they are all full of character flaws. However, I think that General McPeak is stretching it.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Obama and his surrogates are exceedingly thin skinned, as his facade of sainthood gets peeled away.
But the TV says he is the messiah

[Remington Raider]

Hey, whatever works. Of course, with 20-20 hindsight and the opening of Soviet files we now know, in some cases, Tailgunner Joe was dead on.

[Massgrunt]

But the TV says he is the messiah
Shit, you should see the cover of Rolling Stone.

[Shotgun Styles]

For all the venom spit at Obama on this board, it's not as though we've had stellar leadership up this point.

A little objectivity would do us all some good.

[Parajuevos]

For all the venom spit at Obama on this board, it's not as though we've had stellar leadership up this point.

A little objectivity would do us all some good.

Okay, you've opened the door. Fire away. Give us your take on the Senator.

[CA SGT]

Yeah...I would like to hear the Obama positives as well. I hate Hillary as much as anyone, but Obama flat out worries me. 20 years of sitting in a church with a radical preacher spewing hate speech, yet he "didn't hear it." Two views-One is he is lying, which I believe,or two he is so clueless that he never got it, which is even scarier in that people want him to be President. He's a great speaker, but I believe it is all window dressing..No substance behind the rhetoric, just "change, change, etc." The other troublesome associations are his pastors with Farrahkan (Nation of Islam) and the Ghadaffi trip, et al. Then you have the weather underground guy and Obama's association, yet truly undefined, with him. I believe that there is more out there, but few news organizations are even bothering to look, as they have annointed him. Nobody is allowed to utter his middle name, yet is IS his name. I guess my point is, is that there really has not been the probing of Obama's background, like is usual in politics. I hate the Hildabeast, but Obama is an unknown. However what is coming out is not promising...

[Hot Mess]

For all the venom spit at Obama on this board, it's not as though we've had stellar leadership up this point.

A little objectivity would do us all some good.


Hold up. I need to go get some popcorn.

Given your current career choice I would think carefully about what Obama means to your future.

[Slim]

For all the venom spit at Obama on this board, it's not as though we've had stellar leadership up this point.

A little objectivity would do us all some good.
The leadership up to this point, if by that you mean George Bush, is not running.

As for objectivity, beyond what I think are valid questions about how he feels about "typical white people", his policy ideas are so glaringly leftist it is almost not worth debating. He is an advocate of giving away pretty much everything from education to healthcare, he has a contractionist view of the military and is in favor of raising taxes immediatley upon taking office. Now, the membership of this board is by no means monolithic in it's political point of view, but there is a bit of a conservative bent here. Given how left of center Obama is, he is unlikely too many friends among the membership.

[Silverbullet]

For all the venom spit at Obama on this board, it's not as though we've had stellar leadership up this point.

A little objectivity would do us all some good.

Why did you join, then?

9 posts and you know what is good for the members of this board? Interesting.

Just because a majority doesn't like him isn't an indication members aren't being objective. Stating opinions of the majority aren't objective is a old well worn attempt to marginalize those opinions.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

For all the venom spit at Obama on this board, it's not as though we've had stellar leadership up this point.

A little objectivity would do us all some good.
As to objectivity...
I am antiBush.
I believe he was a disaster for this country.

But just because the last boss sucked doesn't mean we lower our standards for the next boss.

Obama is not up to the task.
The failures of this administration has nothing to do with Obama's qualifications.

[Slim]

As to objectivity...
I am antiBush.
I believe he was a disaster for this country.

But just because the last boss sucked doesn't mean we lower our standards for the next boss.

Obama is not up to the task.
The failures of this administration has nothing to do with Obama's qualifications.
Now if we can get KidA and mdb to agree that Obama is no good it will officially be the most lopsided opinion in SOCnet history.:D

[MPCOA]

Shit, you should see the cover of Rolling Stone.
I tried to read the one that said the surge was a failure, I can imagine.

[JRB11]

More importantly, which of the top candidates would you rather drink a beer with?;)

[Shotgun Styles]

On the issue of Obama, I'll try to hit all the points.

First of all I realize that most of you are conservatives. I am left of center on most social issues, right of center on most fiscal issues. Whatever that makes me is whatever that makes me. For the sake of most internet discussions, I call myself a Liberal. I don't discuss my personal politics at work because it just causes problems.

I rank the candidates this way:

Obama

McCain

Anyone on earth besides Hillary.

The question of Obama really comes down to weather or not you believe what he says. If you do, he is inspirational. If you don't, he's just another snake oil salesman. I personally don't care about Rev. Wright, or any other person he knows. It's what the candidate says that is important to me. I didn't care when President Bush supporter Pat Roberson (who is crazy) said all the crap he said. President Bush didn't say it, so even if Pat were his brother I would not ascribe Pat's words to President Bush.

I have always liked McCain. For much the same reasons that I like Obama. I take him at his word, and he seems to follow his conscience more than his party. That has value. It tells me that he cares more about right and wrong than he does appeasing lobbyists.

If Hillary caught fire, I'm not sure I'd waste the piss to put her out. She is a thumb in the wind politician who will do and say anything to get elected. She represents everything that is wrong with American politics.

Someone above asked why anyone would serve if they liked Obama. My answer is simple: some things are more important than my personal politics. There are 17 year old kids standing on the front lines fighting for my freedom. Someone has to go stand with them. I could stand on the sidelines and bitch about this or that political gripe. Or I can go and stand with my brothers and see as many of them through the fight as possible.

This is my country too. I'll be damned if I'm going these young people shoulder the burden alone. There are enough people on the conservative side who don't have the stones to sign a contract, so I'd best make sure there's at least one more Liberal who does.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[Silverbullet]

Considering President Bush wasn't a close personal friend of Robertson or get influenced by him, your comparison comparison is wrong.

Obama called this dude his mentor, was married by him and knew what he said. If he didn't after 20 yrs of a close relationship then he is mentally obtunded.

Racist bigotry aside, Obama is woefully unprepared to lead a shopping spree let alone this nation.

[Parajuevos]

On the issue of Obama, I'll try to hit all the points.

First of all I realize that most of you are conservatives. I am left of center on most social issues, right of center on most fiscal issues. Whatever that makes me is whatever that makes me.

It makes you an enigma. The social programs of the left, with their price tags, don't compute with fiscal conservatism.

[KidA]

Now if we can get KidA and mdb to agree that Obama is no good it will officially be the most lopsided opinion in SOCnet history.:D

Pay attention: I can't stand the guy. :D

Wait. I don't know the guy.

I don't think he'd be a good President - at all. And yes, he's lying when he says he only heard some of the bad things his preacher said, but not all of them.

[Remington Raider]

I don't think he'd be a good President - at all.

Wow. End of Days. Waiting on the Trifecta!;)

[NightLandNav]

Considering President Bush wasn't a close personal friend of Robertson or get influenced by him, your comparison comparison is wrong.

Obama called this dude his mentor, was married by him and knew what he said. If he didn't after 20 yrs of a close relationship then he is mentally obtunded.

Racist bigotry aside, Obama is woefully unprepared to lead a shopping spree let alone this nation.

Nice! :cool: Last time I heard that word used was playing Scrabble on a long flight.

It's a perfect word for anyone actually that unaware of a long term personal friend's proclivities.

And...Deceptive is the word for anyone pretending to be that unaware.

...either way, it's not good.

[Greenhat]

I rank the candidates this way:

Obama

McCain

Anyone on earth besides Hillary.

In other words, you are willing to believe those who say what you want to hear, regardless of their actions. All three candidates are obviously not people of honor, or people who actually say what they mean. Taking any of the three at their word is ludicrous.

[Richman]

This discussion on the candidates for president has been batted around the JOC a lot in the last few days. Most agree that Obama doesn't bring shit to the table.

There was one who was an ardent Obama supporter until I told him to listen and learn (then judge for himself) to Obama's Pastor and the speech Obama gave a few days ago. He's slowly changing his mind, although I think he's afraid to tell his wife. I bet Obama has the same problem with his wife!

We have one Hillary supporter. He's in the Air Force so we didn't expect much from him anyway. :D

We had one guy here who was such a staunch GOP guy that he would yell at the TV when the news showed any Dem speaking. He and the AF guy would get into long "discussions". :rolleyes: Glad he retired.

My guy (Fred) dropped out. He didn't try hard enough. I guess this is one election that I'll hold my nose, vote, and pull the "less evil than the other one" lever.

[JRB11]

So who was the last POTUS who was a "person of honor"?

[Bravo Five Romeo]

So who was the last POTUS who was a "person of honor"?
Carter

[Greenhat]

So who was the last POTUS who was a "person of honor"?

Maybe...

Ronald Reagan?

Harry Truman?

Teddy Roosevelt?

Andrew Jackson?

Thomas Jefferson?

George Washington?

There sure aren't that many possible options...

[Greenhat]

Carter

Hell no.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Hell no.
I'm not saying he was popular.
I'm also not saying he was always right.
I am, however, saying he was honorable.

[Greenhat]

I'm not saying he was popular.
I'm also not saying he was always right.
I am, however, saying he was honorable.

And I'm telling you he wasn't.

[mdb23]

Wow. End of Days. Waiting on the Trifecta!;)

How did I get lumped into this?

Anyway, for the record, I can't stand Obama. He is either a liar or closet racist, and isn't qual'd for the office of POTUS.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

And I'm telling you he wasn't.
Sir. I am fully aware that he made wrong decisions.
I am also aware that his politics may have been viewed unfavorably.
But I am unaware of him acting dishonorably as president.

Clinton lied to investigators.
Reagan broke the law to fund the Contras

These were dishonorable things.

What dishonorable thing did Carter do?

[KSM]

So who was the last POTUS who was a "person of honor"?

I don't know any of them personally, but I'd have to venture a guess that there hasn't been one in a very long time (if at all). In the modern age, politicians run for the presidency. If they were truly people of honor, they probably wouldn't have made it that far as politicians. Sad but true. I'm not saying all politicians are scumbags... Just 99.9% of them (and that .1% is really just a naive hope that one of them, somewhere, isn't a worthless, lying, self-serving POS). I'm not saying there aren't Presidents who I like more than others, I would love to have Teddy Roosevelt running the show right about now. But realistically, anyone who gets to the level of being a real candidate for the Presidency probably didn't get there by being a good, honest person. Politics is a game where the good guy not only loses, but doesn't even make it past try-outs. Just my own (admittedly cynical) opinion.

[Mephisto]

Ronald Reagan? Iran, he let Ollie North take the fall for his tough public talk on Iran and his behind the scenes deal of trading guns for hostages. Yet said we don't negotiate with terrorists. Reagan wasn't much of a president. He didn't end the cold war, communism in the Soviet model bankrupted itself. Sort of like how Neo-Capitalism and globalism has bankrupted the USA. Reagan wasn't all that unless you are into a BIG military. Look at what Washington said about large standing armies and what they end up doing to liberty.

Harry Truman? Truman was a moron. He rode on the coat tails of the American dictator FDR and that communist Henery Morganthau. Placed American troops under the UN in Korea fighting communists while communists held seats in the security council where they had information fed to them on troop movements and battle plans which they fed to NK.

Teddy Roosevelt? Now we might be getting someplace. Teddy definitely seemed to care about the country, the national parks prove this.

Andrew Jackson? Hell yes, Andy killed the bank! And they tried to kill him three times for it. We need another Jackson today.

Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson is my all time favorite and I think was the personification of all Americans. He understood true freedom, liberty and rights, he penned them. Plus he answered the WH door in his pajamas and invited regular people off the street to eat with him at night at the WH. Today to eat at the WH you pay 100K a plate and have to be vetted and connected or dealing drugs for the G in Central America.

George Washington? Washington didn't say much, but what he said has weight. He warned us of leaders who sought more than two terms. This applies to Congress and FDR. He told us to beware of standing Armies yet we worship Reagan. He also told us he'd rather have an Army of asses led by a lion than an army of lions led by an ass. Yet all I see is asses trying to front as lions leading a generation of willing Americans to war and deserting them on the line.

I agree Carter had some honor, but men of honor don't last in Banana Republics.

[Greenhat]

What dishonorable thing did Carter do?

You mean other than supporting Communists who had publicly proclaimed their opposition to the United States?

Or actively avoiding any involvement as Commander in Chief in the POW/MIA issue?

Or allowing (or actively encouraging) the elimination of standards and and the non-enforcement of UCMJ in his "All-Volunteer" military?

Or accepting the Noble Peace Prize for something that he had very little to do with?

Carter was far from an honorable President.

I put the question mark behind Reagan's name because of Iran-Contra (although I think there is reason to think that Reagan supported that because he felt it was the honorable thing to do) and some other things.

The more one knows of history, the more one discovers how few honorable men serve in government. Note that Abraham Lincoln isn't on my list? There is a reason.

[Offroad]

Nice! :cool: Last time I heard that word used was playing Scrabble on a long flight.

It's a perfect word for anyone actually that unaware of a long term personal friend's proclivities.

And...Deceptive is the word for anyone pretending to be that unaware.

...either way, it's not good.


Precisely.

Well stated.

[dustyrebel]

Greenhat-
Sir, just curious, what reason(s)?

[Mephisto]

If you need information on Lincoln read The Real Lincoln. Right or wrong I believe Lincoln put us on the path of unConstitutional government.

Yeah, Carter, I forgot about how he endorsed that commie terrorist Nelson Mandella.

I wonder what would be said about us here if we were ever to hold office though?

[Seanmcd82]

Reagan wasn't much of a president. He didn't end the cold war, communism in the Soviet model bankrupted itself.

That is perhaps the most absurd statement I have read in a long time. Where did you come up with that insightful opinion?

Reagan wasn't much of a President. And it was simple coincidence that the Soviet Union fell apart. I am sure it had nothing to do with a well documented strategy by the Reagan Administration to continue the Arms Race, Star Wars, SDI, etc. with the sole intent of causing the Soviet Union to try to keep pace. Wow, that was some good fortune!

Having been a soldier during the Cold War, I much prefer that end result over Option B...

Frankly I wonder if you have read any History at all, and where you were during the 80's..

[Seanmcd82]

Double Tap..

[Remington Raider]

Frankly I wonder if you have read any History at all, and where you were during the 80's..

Gleaming in his daddy's eye?:)

[rwdavisjr]

Carter - His Information of Fredom Act killed more people withing 48 hours of its inception than any previous President outside of an active war. Carter was an idiot who feared nuclear power. When Carter left office he "borrowed" the money from the American people to start his Habitat for Humanity program and then closed the Presidential loophole that allowed him to get the money free. He also tried to get lifetime Commissary and PX privilliges because he was the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces. I don't think Carter stands a chance of winning any honor based contest.

Reagan - Anyone who knows history knows the USSR coiuldn't stand up to our ecomonic output for war materials and when the USSR tried they failed. Iran-Contra? Anyone with any knowledge of guerilla warfare knows fighting the Contra's was an honorable action.

I belive Washington has top honors for the "honorable" title. Probably best overall as well.

[TPD1280]

Why is Ike omitted in the list of honorable presidents?

I have yet to hear of his name attached to any scandal.

[Mephisto]

Well I put in 10 years between 92 and 2002. I served my government and now I pay more than I ever earned as a public servant in taxes to that government. I have the right to condemn that government by birth, I reserve the right to condemn it and its leaders especially now considering the above.

I'm glad we disagree on Reagan, but had FDR not been pink we might have never had a cold war. The Bolshiveks could have been beaten by 1948 and the Russian people and the Soviet Bloc spared the next 4.5 decades of hell.

Their space spending, military spending, jobs programs, inefficiency and Afgahnistan killed them. SDI took the credit and so did Reagan. I guess you have to have someone to pin victory on and awarding that to the idiocy of Bolshevism killing itself doesn't look as cool.

[Seanmcd82]

Their space spending, military spending, jobs programs, inefficiency and Afgahnistan killed them. SDI took the credit and so did Reagan. I guess you have to have someone to pin victory on and awarding that to the idiocy of Bolshevism killing itself doesn't look as cool.

LOL, again, pure coincidence that Reagan happened to be in office when all this happened huh?

SDI Took credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union? And Reagan was just along for the ride? Your argument is getting more absurd, maybe time to stop.

[Greenhat]

Greenhat-
Sir, just curious, what reason(s)?


Completely ignoring the US Constitution is the prime reason. Jailing an entire state legislation. Not allowing the Supreme Court to hear a case. Research the Civil War in depth in terms of the actions of the President of the United States and there isn't much honor there. It may have been necessary. It wasn't honorable.

[Mephisto]

I don't think my opinion you are programed to percieve as an argument about Ronald Reagan is anywhere near absurd. Believing party propaganda I think is absurd. Like Mc Cain being a hero is an absurd belief if held by any veteran who rose above the rank of E-2. Like thinking FDR saved America after having read the communist manifesto and reviewed the New Deal.

[Greenhat]

Believing party propaganda I think is absurd.

How about believing letters written by Ronald Reagan long before he was President (or even Governor of California)?

How about believing documents from the Kremlin, especially those related to the choice of Mikhail Gorbachev? Or maybe you believe those are party propaganda as well?

[Greenhat]

I belive Washington has top honors for the "honorable" title. Probably best overall as well.

I expect you are correct, but his handling of the Whiskey Rebellion, the first bank of the United States, and the payment of Revolutionary War pensions makes his actual record not as good as his legend.

[Greenhat]

Why is Ike omitted in the list of honorable presidents?

I have yet to hear of his name attached to any scandal.

Read the Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower. Might change your mind.

[Parajuevos]

Carter

Carter was a country bumpkin. He should have stayed on the peanut farm.

Was he honorable? Probably not. He was, without a doubt impotent, as Commander in Chief.

Is any President or Politician honorable 100%? Probably not.

Is any human being 100% honorable? Probably not.

To borrow a phrase from Leo "The Lip" Durocher, "Nice guys finish last."
We live in a harsh and dangerous world. I want a President, who's personality is a mixture of alley fighter and diplomat.I want a President who is not afraid to kick his adversaries in the balls, if that's what it takes to remain King of the Mountain.

I don't want a President, who belongs to the "America is to Blame for Everything Crowd," or a President who subscribes to the theory that the White House is going to be a Mecca for Racists, black or otherwise and who's best pals are fire breathing race baiters, who want me to atone for the alleged sins of my forefathers, who's actions I had no control over. I also don't want a carpetbagging bitch, who window shops for a state to park her worthless ass in, so she can hijack a Senate seat and use that seat, as a base of operations, to launch a Presidential campaign, based on her experience, as a cheated on housewife of a former President.

Obama will be a one race President, if elected.

Hillary will be a cloned version of slick Willie.

No thanks to either of them. I'm voting for McCain.

[JRB11]

rwdavisjr, I believe we armed the contras, not fought them. Laws were broken to arm them, and it was a mistake to support Samosa to begin with. Just another SA despot. I think the term HONOR is a matter of perspective. Anyone who rises to the top will both please some, and piss off others. They've all had to make tough decisions, and live with the consequences. All humans have flaws, and all presidents are human.

[Silverbullet]

Well I put in 10 years between 92 and 2002. I served my government and now I pay more than I ever earned as a public servant in taxes to that government. I have the right to condemn that government by birth, I reserve the right to condemn it and its leaders especially now considering the above.

Wow......

While you may have the right to do something as a citizen of this country, but you don't have a right to utilize the bandwidth of this site with stupidity. You're a visitor plain and simple.

All your chest thumping about rights and what you've earned won't play here if you can't articulate a reasonable position supported by facts.

So far, you have failed to do this. Hyperbole doesn't count as facts.

[SOTB]

How did I get lumped into this?

Anyway, for the record, I can't stand Obama. He is either a liar or closet racist, and isn't qual'd for the office of POTUS.It doesn't matter how you got here, your'e here, dude -- and now history will mark this day for eternity.

For the two wannabe shit-stirrers that have shown up and think they have the stones to preach to the members of this board -- you've logged onto the wrong site, you meant to log onto Sillynet -- all you'll find here are adults who don't have their heads either shoved in the dirt or submerged in a bottle of booze -- I don't think you'll like it here....

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Carter was a country bumpkin. He should have stayed on the peanut farm.
A bumpkin?
Why?
Because he had an accent and that's how comedians portrayed him?
How many bumpkins have degrees in nuclear physics?

Was he honorable? Probably not. He was, without a doubt impotent, as Commander in Chief.
Impotent? How?
I presume you are refering to the Iran hostage crisis?
What should he have done differently?
Given in to their demands and turned over the Shah?
Bombed them to satisfy every Joe six-pack wearing a "bomb Iran" t-shirt?
That would have worked well... if you wanted all the hostages executed.
What did he do?
He looked impotent on TV, putting the safety of the hostages above his image, above his approval rating.
Meanwhile, he was secretly negotiating with one hand while authorizing a rescue mission with the other.

When the rescue mission failed, he did something no President (democrat or republican) has done since... something truly Presidential and honorable.
He took responsibility. Even though he didn't cause that crash in the desert, he got on TV and took full responsibility saying as President it rested with him.
After the failed rescue mission, the hostages were spread out in various unknown locations, making a future rescue operation impossible.
He sacrificed his image and his chance at re-election for the safety of the hostages.
That was pretty honorable.
Every President since him is all about maintaing their image and shifting responsibility.
Impotent my ass. That took balls.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Reagan - Anyone who knows history knows the USSR coiuldn't stand up to our ecomonic output for war materials and when the USSR tried they failed.
Gorbachev ended the Cold War... Reagan deserves credit for the assist.


Iran-Contra? Anyone with any knowledge of guerilla warfare knows fighting the Contra's was an honorable action.
Honorable? You have got to be shitting me?
He disregarded the Constitution and defied laws set by Congress.
He illegaly sold weapons to Iran.
When the scandal broke he got on TV and lied to the American people saying it never happened.
When more evidence came up he backpeddled and admited it happened.
He traded arms for hostages, giving in to terrorists left and right... while talking tough about terrorism on TV. Image is more important than reality.
He violated the Arms Export Control Act selling weapons to Iran
He violated the Boland Amendment by illegaly sending money to the Contras.

Which part of a President ignoring the law, defying Congress, arming terrorists, and lying to the American people is honorable?

[Parajuevos]

A bumpkin?
Why?
Because he had an accent and that's how comedians portrayed him?
How many bumpkins have degrees in nuclear physics?


Impotent? How?
I presume you are refering to the Iran hostage crisis?
What should he have done differently?
Given in to their demands and turned over the Shah?
Bombed them to satisfy every Joe six-pack wearing a "bomb Iran" t-shirt?
That would have worked well... if you wanted all the hostages executed.
What did he do?
He looked impotent on TV, putting the safety of the hostages above his image, above his approval rating.
Meanwhile, he was secretly negotiating with one hand while authorizing a rescue mission with the other.

When the rescue mission failed, he did something no President (democrat or republican) has done since... something truly Presidential and honorable.
He took responsibility. Even though he didn't cause that crash in the desert, he got on TV and took full responsibility saying as President it rested with him.
After the failed rescue mission, the hostages were spread out in various unknown locations, making a future rescue operation impossible.
He sacrificed his image and his chance at re-election for the safety of the hostages.
That was pretty honorable.
Every President since him is all about maintaing their image and shifting responsibility.
Impotent my ass. That took balls.

Your arguments are eloquent and I mean that sincerely. No sarcasm here.
If I ever need an advocate you'll be my first choice. However, please tell me what President Carter accomplished that was of long lasting benefit to our country.

As far as being a Country Bumpkin is concerned, he was. I'll have to admit that he was an intelligent Country Bumpkin, full of misguided good will, in a world full of his moral opposites and this did him in. In short he wasn't ruthless enough and the bullies of the world knew it and took full advantage of that fact.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

However, please tell me what President Carter accomplished that was of long lasting benefit to our country.
Very little.
I am not here defending Carter's accomplishments... he had few. I am, however, here defending him as an honorable man. His intentions were good. He was never embroiled in any scandal nor did he lie to the American people or Congress. His four year presidency suffered a terrible international crisis and accomplished little... but he served honorably.

[Parajuevos]

Ronald Reagan? Iran, he let Ollie North take the fall for his tough public talk on Iran and his behind the scenes deal of trading guns for hostages. Yet said we don't negotiate with terrorists. Reagan wasn't much of a president. He didn't end the cold war, communism in the Soviet model bankrupted itself. Sort of like how Neo-Capitalism and globalism has bankrupted the USA. Reagan wasn't all that unless you are into a BIG military. Look at what Washington said about large standing armies and what they end up doing to liberty.

Harry Truman? Truman was a moron. He rode on the coat tails of the American dictator FDR and that communist Henery Morganthau. Placed American troops under the UN in Korea fighting communists while communists held seats in the security council where they had information fed to them on troop movements and battle plans which they fed to NK.


Ollie North is a true man of honor, in my opinion. He probably saved the Reagan Presidency, by falling on his sword. He never flinched. I truely respect the man for his guts.

I see nothing wrong with President Reagans idea that we need a stong military. I think that a strong military is a necessity, in this dangerous world. We are not the primarily rural and sparsley populated country, isolated from most of the world, by oceans, that we were during Washingtons time. His ideas don't apply today.

You call FDR a dictator. The people elected him. He was a liberal and possibly even a socialist but he had the skills to interact with the allies and appoint the right leaders both military and diplomatic to win WW2. He was the right man for the job, at the time.

You call Harry S. Truman a moron. No, he was not a moron. He was a non college educated Missouri farm boy, who led an Artillery Battery in WW1, became a Senator who, as head of the Armed Services Committee, ferreted out waste by the Defense Department. He took over when FDR died and although he had been kept in the dark about the Manhatten Project, quickly got on board and approved the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Ask the 1,000,000 U.S. servicemembers who weren't slaughtered in the planned invasion of Japan, if Truman was a moron. I doubt that many will support your claim.

Ask the many minorities who benefited from the long overdue integration of the Armed Forces, that he initiated, for the good of this country, if he was a moron. I doubt that many, past or present, will support your claim.

[Silverbullet]

Impotent? How?
I presume you are refering to the Iran hostage crisis?
What should he have done differently?
Given in to their demands and turned over the Shah?
Bombed them to satisfy every Joe six-pack wearing a "bomb Iran" t-shirt?
That would have worked well... if you wanted all the hostages executed.
What did he do?
He looked impotent on TV, putting the safety of the hostages above his image, above his approval rating.
Meanwhile, he was secretly negotiating with one hand while authorizing a rescue mission with the other.

When the rescue mission failed, he did something no President (democrat or republican) has done since... something truly Presidential and honorable.
He took responsibility. Even though he didn't cause that crash in the desert, he got on TV and took full responsibility saying as President it rested with him.
After the failed rescue mission, the hostages were spread out in various unknown locations, making a future rescue operation impossible.
He sacrificed his image and his chance at re-election for the safety of the hostages.
That was pretty honorable.
Every President since him is all about maintaing their image and shifting responsibility.
Impotent my ass. That took balls.

I don't really care about the who's honorable or who isn't debate but this is inaccurate information.

Yes he went on TV and took the responsibility. He had to since the responsibility was his. The helo crash was just the icing on the cake that caused the mission to be aborted. Carter had so hamstrung the entire mission that they were forced into that option to start with. They wouldn't have been at desert one if he hadn't put so many requirements on the TF. So, yeah, it was his responsibility.

The future rescue being impossible statement is also false and comes a surprise to me since I was involved in the preparations for a 2d attempt. It also flies in the face of public documents including books by those involved at high levels.

He didn't put the welfare of the hostages above anything, including his image. This idiot didn't even want the bad guys killed!

On top of all that the entire hostage taking probably wouldn't have happened if Carter wasn't perceived as a weak ineffective leader. No one cared what he thought, internationally. Debriefing of T's and other non state actors has confirmed that there was a strong perception that Carter would never retaliate against anyone. He stood by and let many things happen without using force or even threatening to use force. This on top of his cutting military spending so much there were no funds to pay for training, bullets, etc.. Concurrently he gutted our intelligence services.

His image sucked, so he had nothing to lose by going on TV. It was an honorable thing to do. I'm not convinced it took balls, though.

I served when he was President. Those were dark days for our military in addition to him being the joke of the world.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Carter had so hamstrung the entire mission that they were forced into that option to start with. They wouldn't have been at desert one if he hadn't put so many requirements on the TF. So, yeah, it was his responsibility.
I was unaware of this and I will defer to the opinion of those, like yourself, more in the know about the details.

[NightLandNav]

Shit, I am late to the debate once again. Clearly I'm not spending enough time here.

TPD1280,
x2 Greenhat. Also: U2 and the pilot were both publicly denied, then as the evidence became overwhelming..."OK, it's our plane and our pilot." IKE's credibility with the majority of Americans (who vote) was gone.

Tactically, I understand. ...but there's a big difference b/ General and POTUS.

IMHO, IKE's WWII OSS type experience as Supreme Allied Commander interfered with his job as POTUS. Especially the "Supreme" part. Not his ego mind you, just the latitude to get things done his former job allowed...and the latter did not.

Still, his first term was an American "hay-day" of economic growth and development while the rest of the world tried to put the pieces back together. His first term was "gold".

...

Carter? It seems we must first agree on the definition of "honorable".

I'll say this, Carter had an exemplary record as a Naval Officer, as well as graduating 59th out of 820 in his class at Annapolis. As has been stated, his degree was in physics. ...from the US Naval Academy.

All I can say is, unless they gave* extra credit for land navigation and push-ups, I'd have been fucked trying to get a degree in physics from one of the Academies.

So, he's book smart, and a USNA graduate.

I would ask this; as POTUS, did Carter break any relevant correlating guidelines for "honor" set by the Annapolis Honor Code. I'm not sure what it's called at the USNA. At West Point it's the Cadet Honor Code.

Did he live up to the Code? If "yes", then I would suggest that "dishonor" needs to be defined. "Dishonor" by not keeping the "Faith"? No definition needed.


BTW, I'm not a fan of Carter's tenure as POTUS. ...at all.



*a whole shitload.

[Mephisto]

I know my views are unpopular on many things, standard common held beliefs and American icons.

I don't think we needed to nuke Japan from the readings and studying I've done. Especially civilians. Why not have dropped it in Tokyo Bay instead? Japan is an island. Byt the time FDR died Japan was cut off from oil, steel and the world. Germany was defeated, Italy was long over. No GI needed to invade Japan. The Japanese were actually in deliberations trying to figure out how to surrender according to some writings left by Churchill. I think Henry Morganthua just wanted to drop a bomb and Truman was uneducated enough and country enough to go along. I think Truman had no idea what kind of weapon he had. I understand he was a brave soldier, but brave soldiers rarely make great presidents in America. My father at 19 assaulted Hamburger Hill, yet I do not believe he should run the country. I'm no coward, and though Constitutionally qualified I do not believe I should ever hold office. Soldiers and politics don't mix, and just because you get a DD-214 doesn't erase the soldier you are for the rest of your life mentally and spiritually. So perhaps you are partly correct on Truman, but that communist Morganthua led him down the pink path. Lots of Americans have been easily duped into socialism lite, from the New Deal by FDR, to LBJ's Great Society to the Clinton's treasonous New Covenant. I dred to see what the people fall for after Nov. 2008.
Hell I know people who think Clinton is a hero and a great president. I'm not a fan of the post WW2 Brave New World I can no longer deny or dismiss as a conspiracy theory.
If you notice I slam both democrats and republicans, I don't bat for any team.
Oliver North over stepped his duties, he was negotiating as a head of state, he was a Marine in uniform on AD. That is a major issue, he obstructed justice like Reagan or not and I thought he was alright considering the alternatives, but he broke the law. and we are all equal under God and the law. Why is it that every administration breaks the laws it is bound Constitutionally by and between themselves, congressional hearings (mock trials) and the people they are allowed to slide? Yet we crucify people for DUI's, or insider trading or saying something "politically incorrect" on the news? Hell baseball players get hung out to dry over roids, but presidents can obstruct justice, rule contra to the Bill of Rights through executive orders, run drugs (Clinton Arkansas) and kill thousands with not so much as a "my bad" and they get libraries in their names, ships named after them and massive $$$'s for speeches?

If you notice I said good things about Washington, Jefferson and Jackson. Those are role models we need to re-inject into our schools for children, not Cold War hustlers and dope dealing swingers.

It is no doubt that our founders would take up arms against these thugs who have positioned themselves in the highest offices and abused their power and looted the country into ruin today.

[KSM]

Then you have the weather underground guy and Obama's association, yet truly undefined, with him.

What's the deal with the weather underground guy? I've never heard anything about him...

[SOTB]

I know my views are unpopular on many things, standard common held beliefs and American icons....You give yourself too much credit -- you aren't considered as much "unpopular" as unintelligent/uninformed....

[Massgrunt]

I don't think we needed to nuke Japan from the readings and studying I've done. Especially civilians.
Fuck them anyway. We didn't need to not bomb them.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I don't think we needed to nuke Japan from the readings and studying I've done. Especially civilians. Why not have dropped it in Tokyo Bay instead? Japan is an island. Byt the time FDR died Japan was cut off from oil, steel and the world. Germany was defeated, Italy was long over. No GI needed to invade Japan.
Really?
Do a little research on OPERATION DOWNFALL to understand the cost in lives (both allied and Japanese) that an invasion of Japan would have been.
Here's a link to get you started. (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall2.html)
Forget the hundreds of thousands of Allies who would have died.
Our dropping the atomic bombs and forcing surrender saved countless Japanese lives.

Think for a moment how wars are fought.
Once we drove Japan back to their home islands, should we have left them in peace?
Should we have left their government intact?
Should we have spent the next 50 years maintaining a Naval blockade?
An blockade would not starve Japan into surrender.
They would suffer... well the civilians would anyway, but they would endure.
You're suggestion is that we should have left Tojo and the Imperial government in power.
That is insane.
Imperial Japan needed to be defeated, not just stopped.
Once we drove the Germans back to their borders, should we have stopped and left Hitler in power?
After all... by the Spring of 1945 we had destroyed Germany's offensive capabilities.

The idea that we should have left Japan alone once we pushed them back is absurd and shows little understanding of history.

The Japanese were actually in deliberations trying to figure out how to surrender according to some writings left by Churchill.
Besides that this is not true... even though some revisionists have suggested that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, you must understand two things if that were true..
1. If they were on the verge of surrender, we didn't know it. Hindsight is a bitch.
2. Japan thinking about surrendering is not the same as Japan actually surrendering. As long as the enemy is not surrendering, you continue to fight them as though they never will. This is common sense.
Analogy:
If someone is shooting a gun at you, you shoot him. The fact that he may or may not have been about to drop the gun has no bearing on your decision to shoot him while he was still shooting at you.

I think Henry Morganthua just wanted to drop a bomb and Truman was uneducated enough and country enough to go along. I think Truman had no idea what kind of weapon he had.
Now this is where I stop being polite to you and trying to have a civil discourse.
What the fuck kind of bullshit statement is that?
Your accusations about Truman are insulting.
But worse...
What the fuck is up with your accusation about Henry Morgenthau?
Do you think the secretary of the treasury made the decision to drop the bombs?
The only people who have ever even mentioned Henry Morgenthau in connection to military decisions are wackos who believed he was part of a Jewish conspiracy controlling the government.
Your accusation that it was Henry Morgenthau that made the decision to bomb Japan and Truman just went along reeks of that kind of conspiracy paranoia.

[Parajuevos]

I don't think we needed to nuke Japan from the readings and studying I've done. Especially civilians. Why not have dropped it in Tokyo Bay instead? Japan is an island. Byt the time FDR died Japan was cut off from oil, steel and the world. Germany was defeated, Italy was long over. No GI needed to invade Japan. The Japanese were actually in deliberations trying to figure out how to surrender according to some writings left by Churchill. I think Henry Morganthua just wanted to drop a bomb and Truman was uneducated enough and country enough to go along. I think Truman had no idea what kind of weapon he had. I understand he was a brave soldier, but brave soldiers rarely make great presidents in America. My father at 19 assaulted Hamburger Hill, yet I do not believe he should run the country.

Your father is in my generation. I don't know what his fathers status was during WW2, but my dad was a B-24 Bombardier, who's first thought after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima was,"Now I get to live." Had we invaded Japan, my mom probably would have been raising me as a single parent.

Because President Truman made a difficult decision, I was privileged to be raised in a two parent household, as were many others. Perhaps your dad, who is probably around my age, also benefited from this or perhaps, if he is a little younger than me, he had the opportunity to be born and utimately sire you. It never ceases to amaze me how the legions of ignoramuses, who rant about how we dropped the bomb on the poor Japanese, fail to realize that they wouldn't have been born had the bomb not been dropped because their fathers and grandfathers would have been killed in the invasion, of the Japanese home islands. Okinawa was the bloodiest campaign of the Pacific war but probably would have looked like a warmup compared to the carnage that the invasion of the home islands would have produced .

I have met and talked to the navigator of the Enola Gay. I invited him to speak at a group that I was a member of. A large number of the members of my group were WW2 veterans and several of them had seen combat, in both Europe and the Pacific. They were spell bound by "Dutch" Van Kirks presentation and openly stated that they were alive because of the Atomic Bomb.

"Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima when the Japanese ignored our repeated demands for their surrender. "Fat Boy" was dropped on Nagasaki, after the first bomb failed to convince them that we would continue to reap havoc on them.

The Fire Bombings of Tokyo did more damage than both of the Atomic Bombs, in terms of lives lost. Furthermore, had we invaded, not only would the U.S. Military have lost 1,000,000 men, it is projected that the Japanese, who you seem to be concerned about, would have lost 2,000,000 of it's fanatical citizens, who were ready to die for the Emporer.

Another fact that is often not touched upon, is that the Soviet Union, was licking their chops and probably would have gotten themselves involved in the invasion of Japan, if the war had dragged on, being that they had declared war on Japan, during the closing days of the conflict. This would have created a situation similar to the divisions of Korea, Germany and the parceling up of Europe that was to be our Cold War for the next 50 years. Japan would have been divided up just like those other places, had Russia, been allowed to jump into the fray which they had wisely avoided, with Japan, for most of the war.

As far as your assertion that Truman didn't know what kind of a weapon the Atomic bomb was, did you ever hear of Potsdam? That's where the final decision by Mr. Truman was made to employ the ultimate weapon.

One more point. The Japanese were planning a dirty bomb attack, on San Francisco, that was supposed to be carried out on August 19, 1945. A plane was going to be launched from a giant Submarine, off the cost of Calif. The plane was going to drop a radiation type bomb. The attack never came off because Japan was bombed first and the Japanese surrendered. Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't be here if that had occurred because I was born in San Francisco a few weeks later. So, I have yet another reason to be grateful to President Truman.

Furthermore, the Germans were in the process of transporting uranium, aboard a U Boat, to Japan for use on a bomb that the Japanese were working on when VE day occurred. They pulled into an American Port and gave up the radioactive material. The ten Japanese passengers on the sub committed suicide when the Germans refused to continue on to Japan. My point is, we got the bomb first, thank Christ and we did what we were supposed to do. We used it on the enemy.

In ending, before you ignorantly say that Truman was a dumb man, read his biography. I did found him to be a hell of a guy, with alot of smarts.

[NightLandNav]

The bottom line: Those two A-bombs saved lives. Including saving more Japanese lives than were lost by using them.

Sounds fucked up I know. But from any angle...as bad as it sucked for the Japanese...it would have been worse for the whole nation if the Imperial government had been allowed to make all of Japan a battle ground.

Iwo Jima & Okinawa...consider Japan and do the math. In fact don't, it's already been done.

[KSM]

No GI needed to invade Japan.

At least we agree on that point... In August 1945, when Japan decided to surrender after atomic bombs were dropped, an invasion wasn't necessary.

[Richman]

I don't think we needed to nuke Japan from the readings and studying I've done.

What the hell have you been reading? Does that Kool-aid taste good?

Here's a little light reading for you:

The Invasion of Japan - History Revealed (http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=63881)

[Mephisto]

I was not aware that I was prohibited from insulting politicians on this forum or in this country. I remember reading through old news papers where our founders burned lords in effigy who merely taxed them.

We tollerate people mocking Jesus Christ, but Reagan and Truman are beyond reproach. These people were just men, and nothing more driven by finance and globalists.

As a citizen, veteran and tax payer I think I can condemn my political leaders past and present. I think this is all opinion based. Nuking Japan, an island nation who's capacity to wage war beyond small arms in the streets based on studies and statistics. (you can lie with statistics, we see that in the current primaries)
You cite a 50 year Naval blockade? We destroyed their capacity to make war, why is it that unconditional surrender in the 20th century is the only acceptable surrender? Before nations waged war, one would withdrawl and terms would be agreed upon. Why is it necessary to wage war beyond armies and industry and take that war to the civilians down to the unborn? The older I get the less I agree with total war.

Morganthua was pink and he was in FDR's ear and the Reds pocket. Mc Carthy was correct as history on communism in the US past and present vindicates him.

The United States is a good country, we were too good for our own good and that has led to our own pain and suffering and sacrafice often for the ungrateful.

Patton even realised that at the end of WW2 Red China and Russia emerged as powers that were even worse than the Nazi. I think Patton was correct in saying we should have taken the German army and our army and crushed the USSR when we had Hitler defeated. However Patton was only a General and he died anyway. But his prediction of the USSR came true.

Japan was done though as a military and industrial power. Cut off from the world to the point they could not even send communications to their troops that the war was over.

Truman nuked them, then again he was president when we nuked the desert here in the US and placed US soldiers in the radio-active zones. After Japan they knew what that bomb was capable of, yet you can see on YOUTUBE American GI's in the 50's getting a nice healthy dose of radiation under his watch. And he's a good president.

What do you think George Washington would say about him? Bill Clinton or even our dear leader George Bush today?

War, war, war, every year of my life since I was born we have been at war with someone. VN,the middle east, the carribean, South America,Central America the middle east again.

And out of these wars for America's freedom why do we always end up with less freedom? Sure some infringments are small, some are large, but the freedom is less as Washington said they would be. He said long sustained wars were dangerous to a nations liberty. He warned us against large standing armies. Sure I loved being part of that standing army, but is my desire to prove I love America, to wear a uniform to win accolades, medals and veteran status more important than the Constitution I swore to defend?

Jefferson left us with the advice to stay out of Europes wars. We did until 1917 and we've never been the same since. We have two oceans, vast resources, free people and smart people. We can trade with all nations and side with none.

I will not take you away from your Reagans, Clintons, Carters, Trumans or Ikes. But I have more faith in the words, advice and character of men like Washington, Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin and even Davis than the circus acts we've seen since Lincoln.

If you haven't noticed as a nation we are getting poorer, inflation is happening and has been. We are on the verge of economic collapse and why? Because we didn't listen to our fathers. The price of gas a gallon is over half the minimum wage and jobs in industry are going away if not all gone. What are we going to do? Have the guy making burgers at Mc Donalds buy his burgers from Wendys and their wives doing one anothers laundry to rebuilt this economy and restore a Constituional government?

Come on, I just don't believe the high school text book history channel reinforced views of the establishment anymore.

In 1950 Americans would have flipped if you condemned Lincoln, but today as time passes it is obvious the damage he did, the laws he broke and the death he left in his wake. Where we say "It was necessary, but he wasn't honorable in his actions". In 50 more years maybe we will spit on his grave, change all the schools named Lincoln to Ron Paul and if the penny is still around considering it won't get melted and sold for its metalic value we might even have Adams picture on it.

I never understand the rage people get over anothers opinion. If my opinion is so stupid, then why get angry over it? Curse at me?
I served honorably, I don't lash out at people here vindictively, I just have unpopular opinions on men who put their pants on like you and me and take more tax dollars than they ever paid in.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

As a citizen, veteran and tax payer I think I can condemn my political leaders past and present. I think this is all opinion based.
Of course opinions are welcome.
Informed and supported opinions, not baseless accusations and unsupported historical revisionism.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

So again, I ask you... why you feel Henry Morgenthau made the decision to drop the bomb?
I think Henry Morganthua just wanted to drop a bomb and Truman was uneducated enough and country enough to go along.

[Greenhat]

Jefferson left us with the advice to stay out of Europes wars. We did until 1917 and we've never been the same since. We have two oceans, vast resources, free people and smart people. We can trade with all nations and side with none.

I will not take you away from your Reagans, Clintons, Carters, Trumans or Ikes. But I have more faith in the words, advice and character of men like Washington, Adams, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin and even Davis than the circus acts we've seen since Lincoln.


They were men too. And not especially better men.

Washington condemned common men for wanting a say in the politics of the nation. He mustered 13,000 troops (equal to the size of the Continental Army) to put down a peaceful rebellion against what was seen as an unjust tax (The Whiskey Rebellion). He appointed John Jay (who was flagrantly pro-British and anti-French) to settle disputes remaining from the Revolution, and signed the treaty Jay negotiated, even though Jay failed to get any of the terms he had been instructed to.

Adams is the man who said: "gentlemen will ordinarily, nothwithstanding some exceptions to the rule, be the richer, and born of the more noted families". It was during his administration that the "X,Y Z" affair occurred. And he signed the sedition bill into law (which you have clearly violated... good thing it was repealed).

Jefferson (my personal favorite of all the Presidents), waged an undeclared war with the French (so much for staying out of European engagements... and your claim that we did so until 1917 shows an extraordinary ignorance of US involvement in conflicts since 1798).

http://www.historyguy.com/american_military_history.html

A very incomplete list (doesn't include our military adventures in Korea in the 19th century, for example).

As for Davis, the man was a liar and manipulator of the worst kind. He is certainly not someone to claim had any sort of character.

I won't bother to continue, the point is made. You don't have enough grasp of history.

[Mephisto]

Okay, we agree we don't see eye to eye on Presidents.
Morganthua I believe from readings was the guy who was FDR's continuity man. I'm not into the Jewish conspiracy theories, although all nations and peoples act in their best interests to include Texans and people in Los Angeles. What Japan's bombing has to do with Israel is a mystery to me.
My mothers side of the family is mostly Jewish out of the north east and my dad's Southern Baptist, I try to stay rational. I don't follow either though I lean towards Christ because he makes better sense to me. And it's more convenient. I don't think my aunt or my lazy cousins or my uncles are power holders in this country or abroad, they just work like my Southern Baptist side of the family and try to survive in an ever struggling economy.I know where you are going now and I don't think Israel brought down the Twin Towers either.

Morganthua I don't think made the decision, he supported it strongly and Truman respected him as a trusted adviser personally.When I get home I'll try to source that so you don't think I just picked his name out of a hat.

I just don't see the need to nuke civilians because it sets a dangerous precident. Also holding trials post facto (is that the term?) on war crimes. Look at where this has led, to a Hague tribunal where UN support and pressure is forced on the US to allow its soldiers and heads of state to stand trial for waging a war. Many US generals agree on this.
At the current state of persistance I see from the "World Community" I can forsee in my lifetime my sons or grandchildren in the docks in Europe answering for war crimes because they fought on a losing side or fought in general.

We need to be careful of the stick we use to measure others by, less we be measured by that same stick at a later date. Plus what if China ends up waging war on us and nukes us? What could we say to that having established nuclear weapons on civilians as a method of war.

I'm aware of Washington and his army of men led by officers from a secret society (college Government book) in Shay's Rebellion, and I think that Washington shouldn't have done that.
I agree with Washington about the common man sometimes. The majority of people living in apartments shouldn't be allowed to vote on land owners issues.

I don't know? I share the concern here about the future of our country.
These next three clowns Obama, Clinton and McCain will be worse than any of the men we have just mentioned here.
Maybe that is where we are thinking, compared to X, Y is a saint.
I'm getting older and things are ironing out and I'm settling, and now that things have slowed down and I have time to pay more attention I see what I did 5 years ago matters more today.

[Remington Raider]

Wow. I am learning new stuff just reading this thread, and I have been around a half century. Maybe you should re-read what others have posted here in an effort to EDUCATE you rather than spending your time trying to butress your already discredited positions. Just a thought. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are obviously deficient in your debating skills and your grasp of basic facts.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Also holding trials post facto (is that the term?) on war crimes. Look at where this has led, to a Hague tribunal where UN support and pressure is forced on the US to allow its soldiers and heads of state to stand trial for waging a war. Many US generals agree on this.
At the current state of persistance I see from the "World Community" I can forsee in my lifetime my sons or grandchildren in the docks in Europe answering for war crimes because they fought on a losing side or fought in general.

We need to be careful of the stick we use to measure others by, less we be measured by that same stick at a later date.
So there should be no war crimes tribunals?
We were wrong to prosecute officers who ordered the mass murders of captured civilians and soldiers?
Anything goes?
No way.
Are you suggesting that the crimes commited by the Nazis and the Japanese should have gone unpunished?

We don't need to have our soldiers tried by an international war crimes tribunal because when our soldiers commit war crimes we hold them accountable and prosecute them.
We don't condone criminal behavior and we don't protect the criminals in our ranks.
We have a code of conduct.
In the United States Army, crimes commited by soldiers are against our rules of war.
In Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, crimes commited by soldiers were within their rules of war.
Our military acts and fights with honor and punishes those that don't.

An international war crimes tribunal is a good thing.
Our soldiers would never be brought before them though, because we'd punish them first if they commited a crime.

[Greenhat]

I'm aware of Washington and his army of men led by officers from a secret society (college Government book) in Shay's Rebellion, and I think that Washington shouldn't have done that.

Shay's Rebellion was 1786-87 and Washington had absolutely nothing to do with it.


I agree with Washington about the common man sometimes.

I expect Washington would have considered you a common man.

[Seanmcd82]

Mephisto, you are just plain ignorant. I am sorry, but considering how incredibly nonsensical your statements are, I really don't even care to make intelligent replies and correct your revisionist history.

Because I know that you will not listen, you have made up your mind, and I will simply waste my valuable time. No Thanks.

[KidA]

An international war crimes tribunal is a good thing.
Our soldiers would never be brought before them though, because we'd punish them first if they commited a crime.\

And why can't other countries say the same thing?

"Oh, we're punishing them so we don't need to go to the IWCT."

[zmp]

Nuking Japan, an island nation who's capacity to wage war beyond small arms in the streets based on studies and statistics. (you can lie with statistics, we see that in the current primaries)
You cite a 50 year Naval blockade? We destroyed their capacity to make war, why is it that unconditional surrender in the 20th century is the only acceptable surrender? Before nations waged war, one would withdrawl and terms would be agreed upon. Why is it necessary to wage war beyond armies and industry and take that war to the civilians down to the unborn? The older I get the less I agree with total war.


Japan was done though as a military and industrial power. Cut off from the world to the point they could not even send communications to their troops that the war was over.


If it is not unconditional surrender, it is a conditional cease fire in my humble opinion. If a country has the willingness to go to war with the world for the expansion of their empire (Japan), they are willing to fight to the death to protect their little island. It is my guess that if you were a marine that was playing hop scotch on those little islands leading up to mainland Japan, your opinion might be different today. Total war is what won WWII and brought an effective end to more widespread more prolonged conflict. You have a very idealistic view of war and how it should be played out. War is hell. When ever you enter into conflict, it will be ugly. That is what discourages people and nations. If it were a gentlemans' game with gentleman rules, half the world would be fighting. Idealism gets just as many people killed as greed.

[Longrifle]

I'm aware of Washington and his army of men led by officers from a secret society (college Government book) in Shay's Rebellion . . .
The Freemasons?:rolleyes:

It's all part of the New World Order. We don't want you to dis Brother Truman or Brother Roosevelt. Behave or you don't get to watch "National Treasure" any more.

[KidA]

Mephisto did bring up one point I was going to address, but then thought about it so I don't need to, but here it is anyway:

Why didn't they drop a Nuke in to Tokyo Bay? Would have shown them what was about to happen, without killing all the civilians.

But then I thought: A nuke in Tokyo Bay or Port of Tokyo would likely have created a wave that would have caused just as many casualties...so nevermind.

[1026]

Mephisto did bring up one point I was going to address, but then thought about it so I don't need to, but here it is anyway:

Why didn't they drop a Nuke in to Tokyo Bay? Would have shown them what was about to happen, without killing all the civilians.

But then I thought: A nuke in Tokyo Bay or Port of Tokyo would likely have created a wave that would have caused just as many casualties...so nevermind.

Little Boy and Fat Man didn't have depth bomb options, that's why.;)

[Brianj]

Mephisto did bring up one point I was going to address, but then thought about it so I don't need to, but here it is anyway:

Why didn't they drop a Nuke in to Tokyo Bay? Would have shown them what was about to happen, without killing all the civilians.

To what effect? Months of incendiaries falling on Tokyo had already killed far more than the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - in excess of 100,000 in a single raid, IIRC - and no surrender was forthcoming.

Mephisto: congratulations on feeling older and wiser, but if that's actually the case, you're selling yourself short with off-the-shelf, uninspired revisionism and a sound-bite take on the state of the world:

If you haven't noticed as a nation we are getting poorer, inflation is happening and has been. We are on the verge of economic collapse and why? Because we didn't listen to our fathers. The price of gas a gallon is over half the minimum wage and jobs in industry are going away if not all gone. What are we going to do? Have the guy making burgers at Mc Donalds buy his burgers from Wendys and their wives doing one anothers laundry to rebuilt this economy and restore a Constituional government?

[KidA]

To what effect? Months of incendiaries falling on Tokyo had already killed far more than the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - in excess of 100,000 in a single raid, IIRC - and no surrender was forthcoming.


The Japanese knew about incendiaries. They had incendiaries. Incendiaries are bad, but, again, survivable.

Big huge fucking blow up bomb going off in the bay sending a wave 50' high and wiping out eveerything on the entire coast is the thing they did NOT have.

But, again, it probably would have caused just as many casualties...give or take a few handfuls.

[Brianj]

It's moot. You're saying, I think, that the technology of the bomb would have somehow frightened and compelled the Japanese to surrender?

I'm pointing out that hundreds of thousands of deaths in the months preceding the atomic sorties hadn't produced that result. And that the firestorms that swept through a densely packed, wooden city of 10 million were at least as devastating and horrific as those single drops, by all accounts...and yet the Imperial government continued to tell the citizenry throughout the summer of 1945 it was their duty to persevere and resist.

[armymom1228]

Back to your original subject. This candidate was once known as 'barry'.
I found, by accident, a photo essay on him.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/128633

My personal feelings are that the man IS a racist. He has made some comments in the past week that just grated. "my white granmother"

It does not matter what color the woman is.. when you put pink, purple, blue with yellow polkdots, in from of grandmother is becomes a racist statement.

INNHO this man is unfit to be commander in chief on many levels. Look at the speeches he gave in Kenya while stumping for his brother, instead of learing his job in the Senate and representing his constiuents.
Look at the fact, as has already been pointed out, that he attended a church for 20 yrs and never 'heard' any racist comments. Oprah Winfrey sure did, and left the church over it.

/goes back to lurking.

[RetPara]

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were fused to detonate about 800-1200 AGL. This was done to maximize the blast effect from the bomb. If they had been ground impact bombs, the area where Peace Park in Hiroshima is; would not exist.

Hiroshima is built in a low lying alluvial plain or small river delta. The blast rolled up to surrounding hills and back over the city about three times.

Nagasaki is built in rolling hills which shielded comparatively a lot of the area from the initial blast and did not have the repeated blast waves.

There have been a number of books written about the Japanese plans to defend their home islands. A million allied dead might be a bit.... conservative to take all of Japan. A million dead Japanese, that is a VAST under estimate. I would put the total more like 35-60% of all Japanese alive in the islands would of died in fighting along with starvation and disease.

Also bear in mind that at the end of WWII the US populace was tired in a way we have not seen since. That was the reason behind the War Bond Tour that the flagraisers off Mt Suribachi on Iwo Jima were sent on. The US was running low on money to finance the war.

Dropping the two bombs were the only way short of what would of been a near genocidal invasion of the Japanese home island of ending the war. Actually dropping the bombs were the best thing that could of happened to the Japanese. Through those bombings and that prince they gained Douglas McArthur. While his ego eventually outgrew himself, his reformation of Japanese civil government and reconstruction is a classic is military-civil operations.

[Parajuevos]

The Japanese knew about incendiaries. They had incendiaries. Incendiaries are bad, but, again, survivable.

Big huge fucking blow up bomb going off in the bay sending a wave 50' high and wiping out eveerything on the entire coast is the thing they did NOT have.

But, again, it probably would have caused just as many casualties...give or take a few handfuls.

We only had two Atomic Bombs ready for use at the time. Had the Japanese failed to surrender after Nagasaki we would have continued our conventional war for awhile longer. More Americans would have died. To me that's what matters.

Fortunately for us the Japanese weren't aware of our non existent stockpile.

[Parajuevos]

Back to your original subject. This candidate was once known as 'barry'.
I found, by accident, a photo essay on him.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/128633

My personal feelings are that the man IS a racist. He has made some comments in the past week that just grated. "my white granmother"

It does not matter what color the woman is.. when you put pink, purple, blue with yellow polkdots, in from of grandmother is becomes a racist statement.

INNHO this man is unfit to be commander in chief on many levels. Look at the speeches he gave in Kenya while stumping for his brother, instead of learing his job in the Senate and representing his constiuents.
Look at the fact, as has already been pointed out, that he attended a church for 20 yrs and never 'heard' any racist comments. Oprah Winfrey sure did, and left the church over it.

/goes back to lurking.

You are 100% correct.

[Parajuevos]

Patton even realised that at the end of WW2 Red China and Russia emerged as powers that were even worse than the Nazi. I think Patton was correct in saying we should have taken the German army and our army and crushed the USSR when we had Hitler defeated. However Patton was only a General and he died anyway. But his prediction of the USSR came true.

In 1950 Americans would have flipped if you condemned Lincoln, but today as time passes it is obvious the damage he did, the laws he broke and the death he left in his wake. Where we say "It was necessary, but he wasn't honorable in his actions". In 50 more years maybe we will spit on his grave

I never understand the rage people get over anothers opinion. If my opinion is so stupid, then why get angry over it? Curse at me?


Patton was a subperb field commander. He was a horrible diplomat. That's why Ike and Bradley had to continually muzzle him. Do you really think that it would have been a good idea to send an exhausted military into Soviet Russia? Patton wasn't a prophet. Our leaders already knew that we were in bed with the Devil. The Soviets were our allies out of necessity and only because the Germans invaded them after they had signed a non agression pact with one another which the Germans pissed on, when they turned on Russia, in June of 1940. We knew that we were going to have to deal with Stalin and his country after the War.

Out of curiosity, why do you detest Lincoln?

You are wondering why people show rage and get angry over your opinions.

You wonder why people curse you.

I'm not angry with you and I certainly have no rage towards you. I am simply in awe of your warped sense of history.

Boo Hooing about being abused by us is not becoming of a grown man.

[RGR.Montcalm]

Yes he went on TV and took the responsibility. He had to since the responsibility was his. The helo crash was just the icing on the cake that caused the mission to be aborted. Carter had so hamstrung the entire mission that they were forced into that option to start with. They wouldn't have been at desert one if he hadn't put so many requirements on the TF. So, yeah, it was his responsibility.

The future rescue being impossible statement is also false and comes a surprise to me since I was involved in the preparations for a 2d attempt. It also flies in the face of public documents including books by those involved at high levels.

He didn't put the welfare of the hostages above anything, including his image. This idiot didn't even want the bad guys killed!

On top of all that the entire hostage taking probably wouldn't have happened if Carter wasn't perceived as a weak ineffective leader. No one cared what he thought, internationally. Debriefing of T's and other non state actors has confirmed that there was a strong perception that Carter would never retaliate against anyone. He stood by and let many things happen without using force or even threatening to use force. This on top of his cutting military spending so much there were no funds to pay for training, bullets, etc.. Concurrently he gutted our intelligence services.

His image sucked, so he had nothing to lose by going on TV. It was an honorable thing to do. I'm not convinced it took balls, though.

I served when he was President. Those were dark days for our military in addition to him being the joke of the world.

Amen to that! As another that served through the 444 'dark days', I was glads to see him go. The U.S. military was probably at its lowest ebb, both in training and international standing, from other countries' perspective during his administration.

The U.S. was a superpower, its true, but many believed that we were little more than an undisciplined force compared to the military of today.

The U. S. military of today have Roanld Reagan to thank for its reputation and standing today, after nearly 'starving to death under Carter.

My.02

[NightLandNav]

(Edit: I posted this earlier, I'm having delay with SOCNET for some reason right now )

Incendiaries inshmindaries.

Target damage was not then, and is not now, the only consideration.

Situation dictates, but indicated risk to your own personnel weighs in heavily regarding course of action.

Mt Suribachi on Iwo Jima after the bowl used with a pestle (surikogi) to grind things into a powder. They weren't playing around, neither were we.

IMHO, not dropping more than two "bombs" shows commendable restraint, discretion, prudence and mercy.

...'cause if it was ever just about destruction and revenge, that whole island still wouldn't be able to grow edible produce in it's own soil, the beaches would still smell like dead fish, Godzilla would be real and we would still be using needlessly over sized electronic equipment, let alone our vehicles.

War sucks, don't attack us and we won't have to kick your ass.

[edited to add:] Ahh yes, the famed Patton plan to use Wehrmacht/Allied troops to tromp right back into the USSR is brought up once again. That debate has been long settled. Churchill and Patton would have said "no, fuck no" if they knew how many tanks and planes the USSR actually had when Germany surrendered.

Without using the "bomb", and repeatedly, the realistic success of such an invasion wasn't plausible even if we did know everything they had and were still cranking out daily from their ever growing production lines.

The assertion that we would drop A-bombs arbitrarily on Japan because we were just being assholes, but then weren't assholes enough to drop even better ones on countries posing even greater threats to our national security and world peace... both propositions would be ridiculous even if they didn't contradict one another.

[Brianj]

Target damage was not then, and is not now, the only consideration.

Agreed...

Mt Suribachi on Iwo Jima was named after the bowl used with a pestle (surikogi) to grind things into a powder.

Fitting in retrospect, I guess, but wasn't that because of its shape?

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Mephisto did bring up one point I was going to address, but then thought about it so I don't need to, but here it is anyway:

Why didn't they drop a Nuke in to Tokyo Bay? Would have shown them what was about to happen, without killing all the civilians.
Because we needed the Japanese to see the effects of the blast.
Not just witnesses who would say they saw a big ass explosion off the coast and be dismisssed as exaggerating. After Hiroshima was bombed, many in the Japanese military still did not believe the Americans and argued that the city was destroyed by a mass bombing, not one single blast.

Japanese military could survey the damge and fly over Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see the crater and measure the radius of the blast and the fires it caused.

What exactly could they see if they flew over Tokyo Bay the next day?

[WS-G]

A bumpkin?
Why?
Because he had an accent and that's how comedians portrayed him?

This is precisely the point I make when leftists try to call Mr. Bush "stupid", "poorly spoken", etc.
How many bumpkins have degrees in nuclear physics?
However.... Am I the only one who's ever noticed that for Mr. Carter's (1) degree in nuclear engineering, and (2) experience aboard nuclear submarines, he generally said "NU-KYU-LAR" rather than "NU-CLEAR" in his speeches to the public? Most curious.... Deception perhaps, wanting to be perceived as a mere "good-ol'-boy" type? Or just plain "talking down" to the unwashed masses?

When the rescue mission failed... he got on TV and took full responsibility saying as President it rested with him.
Concur. He acted as a proper Southern gentleman in the matter.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

And why can't other countries say the same thing?

"Oh, we're punishing them so we don't need to go to the IWCT."
They can say the same thing, but there is a diifference between claiming to punish and actually punishing.
The world press witnesses our military trials and watched justice being meted out.
If, for example, the Serbs publicly tried and imprisoned their soldiers who commited crimes then no, the IWTC would not need to go after them.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

This is precisely the point I make when leftists try to call Mr. Bush "stupid", "poorly spoken", etc.
Except that Carter just had a drawl. He was still able to form complete sentences. :D

[SOTB]

Except that Carter just had a drawl. He was still able to form complete sentences. :DIE, "It was a HUGE wabbit that swam right at the boat and tried to kill me!"

Sorry, couldn't resist....:D

[Guy]

Except that Carter just had a drawl. He was still able to form complete sentences. :DTake a look at Warren Buffet, Lenny Dykstra, etc.:p

Stay safe.

[NightLandNav]

...Fitting in retrospect, I guess, but wasn't that because of its shape?

According to their own letters, the mountain was the "Suribachi" (grinding bowl) and the Japanese defenders were the "surikogi" (pestle) that would grind any attackers against Iwo Jima into dust.

In regards to retrospect and Iwo Jima, the Japanese command overestimated their grinding bowl, overestimated the pestle they intended to grind with, and underestimated what they intended to grind.

Underestimating US has fucked up more than few plans the last 232 years.

[Brianj]

In regards to retrospect and Iwo Jima, the Japanese command overestimated their grinding bowl, overestimated the pestle they intended to grind with, and underestimated what they intended to grind.

Maybe so. But I think in terms of their acknolwleged goal - not to repel an invasion, but to attrite US forces to the tune of 23,000 + casualties in three months of fighting - they succeeded.

Sorry - end hijack.

[Spinner]

Why is Ike omitted in the list of honorable presidents?


It probably has something to do with kicking the ball out of the rough on March 28, 1954 at Augusta. :D

I heard Clinton and Nixon made cheating a part of their golf game, which says a lot about a person. Can't pretend you made a shot during a free throw contest, why would golf be any different.

[Guy]

Interesting too see people talking about nuking Japan...

I'd have leveled a few cities in Iraq.:o

Stay safe.

[rwdavisjr]

I stand corected. We did arm the Contras. Guerilla warfare is inherently not as honorable as all out warfare. Some rules will get bent. And Regan had "plausible denial" because he was kept out of the loop on the activities. So, he didn't lie, he was just not completely informed of all the facts.
The helo crash was a direct result of using Navy assets not prepared for flight over desert sand(they lacked proper filtration systems). They were pushed on the mission at the last minute because the Navy wanted more of a hands on than just being the delivery boys.
I served in SF from Johnson through "Slick Willie" Carter was the weakest of them. Not a hero.
Despite his morals Clinton is a good politician. His wife is something else.
As Jesues said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Apply that to the current honor question and there is no person running for President nor any of us discussing this that can pass that test.
We can just act in our most honorable fashion and hope for the best.

[Mephisto]

The reason I dislike Lincoln is because he took an oath to the Constitution and then sidelined it. Declared war on his own country and when his generals couldn't win force on force allowed Sherman to go Serbian on the Southern population.

Again I don't think total war to minimize casualties on your side or ensure a victory hands down is noble and degrades the profession of arms. Instead of disciplined men and gentlemen officers you start to get armed hoodlums and gangsters.

I still think an island nation with limited resources cut off from the world and militarily didn't need the nuking of a civilian population. I understand the attrocities of the Japanese soldiers, and how justice needed to be served, but in the 30's and 40's bad leadership emerged in those countries and turned their militaries into death squads. I don't think in future generations the nuking of Japan will buy us any favor in the comming tribunals. They will come, the whole world is becoming interconnected as our own leaders say, they say we will eventually live in a world without borders, so naturally a world without borders will have to at the least join in a global union with global representation where the laws as irrational as they are will be imposed on everyone equally for a time.

When I was in college I remember hearing the left saying we needed to put our troops in the international docket. Bush so far has prevented actively the UN desire to try our troops, then again if he allowed that he would be subject too.

Plus the trials of post facto run against our own principles of law. We cannot try a man for a crime when it wasn't a crime before in our system. But what if we ever get in a position and we are heading that way economically and socially where we have our heads of state and troops tried ex post facto?
How could we protest? The International War Crimes Tribunal is the child of Nuermburg and we created it.

Just like presidents suspending the Constitution and doing as they pleased started with Lincoln, it started a precident that has led to the trend of laying the law of the land aside to accomplish whatever party that happens to be in powers agenda.

Then mock trial Congressional hearings and closed door hearings and slaps on the wrist by the legislature and judiciary and the next party enters the throne room and does the same thing. But what about you and I? We'd be locked up for conspiracy to say the least. The political parties are free and clear of conspiracy charges, be we aren't. When we accuse them, you see it here, tin foil, ass clown, idiot and banned. Let the Feds charge Joe Dirt with conspiracy and damn right, lock him up.

My point is we have leaders we think of more highly than Jesus Christ who have violated their oaths of office, set dangerous precidents I can see turning against us in the future and have gotten so used to going around the law/Constitution to Gitter Dun we now have politicians openly calling that sacred document we all swore to uphold against all enemies foriegn and domestic a G/D piece of paper.

Well if that document that established free men and the rights of those free men, all of us swore I lifes blood to defend to the end is just a G/D piece of paper in the way of power and profit for the few well connected then we are in big trouble gentlemen.

I didn't come here to fight about my president is better than yours, these politicians are all our presidents like it or not, voted for them or not.

Obama is inexperienced and has major flaws. McCain is McCain and Hillary would without a doubt would have our military further castrated, our institutions turned against us and our generals standing trial at the whims of a world court.

In 1998 people said a recession was impossible, yet we've been having one since 2000.

I remember that people said a United Europe would never happen, it did and their currency and Union is strong.

I remember in recent years people gloated that we were the sole superpower, yet the Russians are starting their Cold War games up again, aiding our enemies and China has us economically in a vice.

If Truman and Lincoln are heroes, then what will the three stooges we have running for office be and what will be their legacy?

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Again I don't think total war to minimize casualties on your side or ensure a victory hands down is noble and degrades the profession of arms. Instead of disciplined men and gentlemen officers you start to get armed hoodlums and gangsters. Really?
Degrades the profession of arms?
So war should be about a level playing field and being fair to the enemy?
So if in a battle, the enemy is charging me with fixed bayonets because they're out of ammo, to be fair, I should not shoot them... instead I should fix bayonets and fight them that way?
I should not call an air strike to destroy an enemy position firing on me... I should attack them only with the weapons they use on me?
What you're saying is that t be fair to the enemy, I should not use superior firepower, even if it costs more casualties on my side, because to do so would be inoble and degrade the profession of arms?
WTF?
Did you stop studying warfare when you got to the 16th century when aristocratic officers would send waves of peasants as fodder rather than sully their honor by flanking or ambushing?

I still think an island nation with limited resources cut off from the world and militarily didn't need the nuking of a civilian population.
They needed to be defeated and there were only two ways it was going to happen... atomic bombs or an invasion.
The lives lost in an invasion would have dwarfed the lives lost in the bombings.
Your suggestion to leave Imperial Japan in peace with Tojo and the imperial government in power is insane and shows a lack of undestanding history.
It was not just about punishing and holding accountable war criminals.
Imperial Japan was a threat to their neighbors and had sworn to conquer Asia and the Pacific.
By your reasoning, I will ask you again... should we have left Hitler and the Nazis in power once we had driven them back to their borders and destroyed their offensive capabilities?

Oh yeah... speaking of questions you haven't answered...
Yet again, I ask you... why you feel Henry Morgenthau made the decision to drop the bomb?
I think Henry Morganthua just wanted to drop a bomb and Truman was uneducated enough and country enough to go along.

[Massgrunt]

Edit: Never mind, too easy.

[Greenhat]

The reason I dislike Lincoln is because he took an oath to the Constitution and then sidelined it. Declared war on his own country and when his generals couldn't win force on force allowed Sherman to go Serbian on the Southern population.

The only part of this that is factual is the first line. Lincoln didn't declare war on his own country (there was no declaration of war for the Civil War - and hostilities were started when Confederate troops fired on a Union fort). And when Sherman started his march? The Union Generals had been winning battles for a while (Sherman's Savannah Campaign was in late 1864. By then the Union had won the battles of Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Chattanooga as well as the Wilderness and Spotsylvania).

Again I don't think total war to minimize casualties on your side or ensure a victory hands down is noble and degrades the profession of arms. Instead of disciplined men and gentlemen officers you start to get armed hoodlums and gangsters.

So, that is what the US Army in the ETO and the US Army and Marines in the PTO were? Hoodlums and gangsters?

I still think an island nation with limited resources cut off from the world and militarily didn't need the nuking of a civilian population.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. The targetting criteria is available at the Smithsonian Institute.

When I was in college I remember hearing the left saying we needed to put our troops in the international docket.

"The left"? Now there is a clear source. :rolleyes:


Plus the trials of post facto run against our own principles of law. We cannot try a man for a crime when it wasn't a crime before in our system. But what if we ever get in a position and we are heading that way economically and socially where we have our heads of state and troops tried ex post facto?
How could we protest? The International War Crimes Tribunal is the child of Nuermburg and we created it.

I don't think you actually understand anything about the crimes tried at Nuremburg or the International War Crime Trials for the Far East. Different standards held in each location, because the Germans and the Japanese had signed different versions (or sections) of the Geneva and Hague conventions. Not post-facto.

Just like presidents suspending the Constitution and doing as they pleased started with Lincoln,

Actually, it started with Washington.

[Silverbullet]

Mephisto,
While we more than welcome differing views and lively discussion, your posts have strayed into the world of fantasy and conspiracy. You continue to demonstrate the inability to engage in rational discussion based on facts vice perceptions of cherry picked portions of historical events.

I'm not sure that you are going to continue to be able to participate on this site since the stuff you post is so out there, it is becoming a embarrassment.

You can chest beat about your "rights" or how this is America and you should be able to say what you want. That doesn't mean we are required to continue to give you a platform to spew your stupidity. I'm sure you can find some other navel gazing knuckleheads to share your ridiculous theories with.

I just op checked my strobe and will mark the LZ if you fail to heed this guidance.

[Brianj]

In 1998 people said a recession was impossible, yet we've been having one since 2000.

So you're as much an economist as you are a historian, I guess. A recession since 2000? Upon what, might I ask, do you base that statement?

[Parajuevos]

Again I don't think total war to minimize casualties on your side or ensure a victory hands down is noble and degrades the profession of arms. Instead of disciplined men and gentlemen officers you start to get armed hoodlums and gangsters.


Well now, Private MORTOR MOUTH, try lining your sites up on the aiming stake and leveling your bubbles before firing your idiotic statements. You're rounds are landing way off target and you are boloing badly.

BY THE WAY, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT SOLDIERS ARE PAYED TO DIE?
Your attitude that they should be sacrificed by "not waging total war" is absurd.

[Guy]

BY THE WAY, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT SOLDIERS ARE PAYED TO DIE?I always thought we were paid too kill the enemy...:D

Mephisto,

Good luck and stay safe.:o

[jane]

Do you really think that it would have been a good idea to send an exhausted military into Soviet Russia? Patton wasn't a prophet. Our leaders already knew that we were in bed with the Devil. The Soviets were our allies out of necessity and only because the Germans invaded them after they had signed a non agression pact with one another which the Germans pissed on, when they turned on Russia, in June of 1940. We knew that we were going to have to deal with Stalin and his country after the War.



I'm studying this in school right now. I read yesterday that Churchill advised Truman to take any extra bombs that were left, and immediately drop them on the Soviet Union.

[NightLandNav]

Maybe so. But I think in terms of their acknowledged goal - not to repel an invasion, but to attrite US forces to the tune of 23,000 + casualties in three months of fighting - they succeeded.

Sorry - end hijack.

Roger that.

A "Pyrrhic victory" is a two edged sword though, the Japanese on IJ suffered a "Pyrrhic defeat".

We needed that island as an air base. Those 23,000 + casualties are at the top of the list of what it cost. Whatever time was granted the Japanese to prepare homeland defenses through delays caused by their sacrificed garrison on Iwo Jima, likely factored in to later Allied decisions regarding invasion.

The Japanese "fight to the last man" strategy based on their historical paradigms of individual honor failed miserably when it came time to see the big picture, especially in the long-term.

Things like "Kamikaze" attacks, fighting to the last man, never surrendering, women and children jumping off of cliffs into the sea to avoid capture, etc...

...shit like that makes the decision to show Imperial Japan that it was time to stop fucking around and agree to terms seem merciful compared to the alternatives available.

Actually BrianJ I'm not sure how much of the above is addressing points you made or things I read in posts by Mephisto. If so disregard.

....[edited to ask:]

Jane, if it's possible, try to get the name of the book, the quote and the source on the Churchill advice to Truman. It would be interesting to know what it is.

Thanks. :)

[Parajuevos]

I'm studying this in school right now. I read yesterday that Churchill advised Truman to take any extra bombs that were left, and immediately drop them on the Soviet Union.

I've never heard this. I read seven volumes of Churchills war memoirs and this was never mentioned.

However, the fact is that we didn't have any more bombs right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Little Boy" and "Fat Boy" were it, at least for the time being.

I've always had the utmost respect for Churchill. I think he was one of the most outstanding leaders of the 20th Century. He may have even been the best. I find it difficult to conceive of him making such a statement but I guess it's possible given his skills at forseeing future problems. He sat in Parliament for 20 years, prior to WW2, trying to warn his country of the coming threat from Germany and was relegated to the position of resident crank. Everything he warned about, eventually happened.

[Balls]

Again I don't think total war to minimize casualties on your side or ensure a victory hands down is noble and degrades the profession of arms. Instead of disciplined men and gentlemen officers you start to get armed hoodlums and gangsters.

:rolleyes: Please, tell me how you like to handle snipers and emplaced guns. Because I prefer to call in something heavy and walk over whats left of the guys that were going to KILL ME.

On second thought, don't worry about it. I hear a bird inbound. No ITG required.

I just op checked my strobe and will mark the LZ if you fail to heed this guidance.


:cool: standing by for brown-out.

[Silverbullet]

I read yesterday that Churchill advised Truman to take any extra bombs that were left, and immediately drop them on the Soviet Union.

What?????

[NightLandNav]

What?????

...hence my request for the source. Since she just read it yesterday, hopefully she can.

[Seanmcd82]

This is starting to feel like the Twilight Zone Thread........

I can barely wait to read what comes next.:rolleyes:

[Greenhat]

There are a number of quotes that are attributed to Churchill that he never actually said. My guess is that this bit about dropping bombs on the USSR will turn out to be one of them.