Politics: J'accuse!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/disp...story_id=13023

Are these kinds of posts supposed to be like a "news ticker" feature of some sort?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Beauty
"Half their efforts" is a sort of lazy hyperbole that wishes away the ugliness of what happened. I know what you are getting at, but still.

Could you put this in english?

(read General Vo Nguyen Giap's "How We Won The War.")

ETA: As I think about it, he even mentions Kerry's efforts approvingly.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Are these kinds of posts supposed to be like a "news ticker" feature of some sort?

Kind of. We need to keep this in the forefront of our minds. I hate keeping it there, but feel it is our moral responsibility to not push it out of our minds, which is easy to do when you get busy.

This post made me feel better.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
Could you put this in english?

(read General Vo Nguyen Giap's "How We Won The War.")

When you say that "half their efforts" were dedicated to changing our hearts and minds, you're using the sort of mindless cant that Orwell complained about in "Politics And The English Language." Half? How many North Vietnamese died trying to change our hearts and minds?

What you mean is that the North Vietnamese recognized that public support for the war in the US was crucial, and acted accordingly. Fine. It's still not a war we were ever going to win, in any meaningful sense of the word. We could have occupied Hanoi. And then what?

It's a conservative ur-myth that we lost that war because the home front let the soldiers down. We lost because we weren't ever going to win.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
Bombing a city is usually not a good way to bring security and stability to it.

If you kill enough people, things will quiet down. However, I understand your point regarding civilian casualties (I think).

Originally posted by Beauty
eta: What's with the press releases? Are you making a bid to become the NFH of the PB?

I didn't think this was out of the ordinary behavior for me. But if that bitch Gorelick isn't booted off that Commission by Friday, you won't be so well informed with the news for the next week.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Not Me
that bitch Gorelick

Nice touch.

[Not Me]

This should be interesting. I hope it doesn't get eclipsed by GWB-Cheney testifying before the 9/11 Commission. This is more important (since the Commission is nothing more than a partisan joke).

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/19737.htm

• WASHINGTON - A former manager in the scandal-scarred oil for food program will tell Congress today how top U.N. officials running the program deliberately looked the other way, congressional officials said last night.
  
  Frenchman Michael Soussan, a former program coordinator for the $100 billion fund, is expected to be the star witness of a House International Relations Committee hearing looking into Saddam's gigantic $10.1 billion rip-off.
  
  Committee sources said Soussan, now a New York-area writer, is expected to give the first, under oath, public account from an insider about how top U.N. officials were aware of Saddam's oil smuggling and kickback schemes but chose to let him get away with it.
  
  Allegations surfaced in a Baghdad newspaper earlier this year that Benon Sevan, the director of the program, was among 270 sympathetic international political and financial figures who received sweetheart oil deals from Saddam.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
Nice touch.

It's become personal.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Beauty
When you say that "half their efforts" were dedicated to changing our hearts and minds, you're using the sort of mindless cant that Orwell complained about in "Politics And The English Language." Half? How many North Vietnamese died trying to change our hearts and minds?

I meant, half of the top brass's efforts. Not, obviously, half of the entire war effort.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
I meant, half of the top brass's efforts. Not, obviously, half of the entire war effort.

Tellingly, we are having an argument about Viet Nam, not Iraq.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
Tellingly, we are having an argument about Viet Nam, not Iraq.

You are arguing about Viet Nam because of the effects that the memory of Viet Nam has on the collective psyche of the American people and how the enemy perceives that it can use that to their advantage and how what alot of Dems are saying is encouraging the enemy to keep fighting and killing coalition soldiers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Beauty
Tellingly, we are having an argument about Viet Nam, not Iraq.

Misdirection. We were arguing the applicability of the VN lesson, but I first had to educate you about the VN lesson.

He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bilmore
He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.

I should add this: I am not one who thinks that we need to supress the Kennedy-speak. My only point was, Sam phrased his objection as if the free-speech issue were the only pertinent issue to be discussed. I disagree, and think that there has to be an acknowledgment that such speech has historically, demonstrably, been of great comfort and motivation to enemies in similar circumstances. That factor needs to be considered in the mix.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Beauty
When you say that "half their efforts" were dedicated to changing our hearts and minds, you're using the sort of mindless cant that Orwell complained about in "Politics And The English Language." Half? How many North Vietnamese died trying to change our hearts and minds?

lots of NVA and Cong died simply to change our parents minds. The Tet offensive was staged, not to win, but to show they could still get to lots of places and inflict damage. It was one of the earliest attacks for the benefit of the cameras. They lost soldiers far out of proportion to any possible strategic value; they didn't care, they were buying air time on US Network News.

I haven't read enough of this to take any other issue, I was just calling you out on this BS statement because I noticed bilmore let you slide.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
I should add this: I am not one who thinks that we need to supress the Kennedy-speak. My only point was, Sam phrased his objection as if the free-speech issue were the only pertinent issue to be discussed. I disagree, and think that there has to be an acknowledgment that such speech has historically, demonstrably, been of great comfort and motivation to enemies in similar circumstances. That factor needs to be considered in the mix.

I am willing to consider any evidence that it matters to those fighting us in Iraq. So far, all we have is tired analogies to Viet Nam.

And you're really ducking the question when you say that "factor" needs to be "considered." How? What do you do with it? What more do you need to know? Just saying it needs to be "considered" sounds like nothing more than a pretext for trolls like Johnson to beat up people like Kerry for political purposes. If you really think that such speech is going to make a dispositive difference for our military efforts, isn't there a patriotic duty for everyone to shut up until the war is over? If not, why not? And if not, why shouldn't Johnson shut up?