Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
I don't think that Japanese insurgents killed 1,000 US troops during the post-war occupation.

That number includes the actual war, not merely the occupation.

FWIW, we lost over 6,000 soldiers on Iwo Jima ALONE

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 how many attacks in the US since 9/11?

2 what does JFK claim he'll do differently? try and get the French to come to Iraq and help. that is, he ain't got a different plan wonk.

Dave Wannstedt would love to have you as his GM.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by taxwonk
[Japan] and Germany embraced democracy. Algeria and Vietnam did not. See the difference?

Hmmm. Two were colonizers with a large percentage of highly skilled laborers, a history of large industrial output (albeit devestated), and a large well educated middle class, even before their occupation.

The other two were colonies, used as a resource for raw materials and a market for finished goods.

And Iraq?

We're so screwed.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Hmmm. Two were colonizers with a large percentage of highly skilled laborers, a history of large industrial output (albeit devestated), and a large well educated middle class, even before their occupation.

The other two were colonies, used as a resource for raw materials and a market for finished goods.

And Iraq?

We're so screwed.

Hence the timeline. It's worth the effort, but you have to cut bait some time, unless you're planning to just drain the pond and kill them all

[bilmore]

I wanna live in Belgium. They're so cool.

Now they want to expand their euthanasia program to include kids.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFrie...storyID=579558

They can't smoke yet, or have sex, but . . .

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That number includes the actual war, not merely the occupation.

FWIW, we lost over 6,000 soldiers on Iwo Jima ALONE

Fair point on the Iraq deaths.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the number of Allied soldiers killed in occupied Germany and Japan (after VE and VJ Days, respectively) by German/Japanese resistance fighters/insurgents was a lot less than we've lost in Iraq since the "cessation of hostilities" (or whatever it was called).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Fair point on the Iraq deaths.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the number of Allied soldiers killed in occupied Germany and Japan (after VE and VJ Days, respectively) by German/Japanese resistance fighters/insurgents was a lot less than we've lost in Iraq since the "cessation of hostilities" (or whatever it was called).

A surrender versus a rout that leaves lots of angry, frustrated men with guns.

Mostly, the gist of this theme is that our attack was too successful. We should have strung it out and slaughtered more of them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, let's be clear here. I do think that he made the choice to be a single-issue persona, and, to that extent, yeah, I do think he deserves what happens when your single issue suddenly starts to tilt.

He's no single-issue persona. You know better than that.

If you mean, though, that I think he deserves to be smeared, not so fast. I don't. If the Swifties stuff turns out to be false, then he certainly did nothing to deserve the lies.

C'mon. That was Brit Hume's dodge last week, and it's not credible. By any reasonable measure, the Swifties have been discredited. Which they knew would happen. The point was not to find the truth, it was to smear Kerry to take him down. Hell, they're not even pissed off at him over what happened in Vietnam -- it's what he did when he got back that bugs them.

But we do know, now, that at least the Cambodia-related stuff was true. We know that he used that story several times as a selling point for various political ends, and we know that he has admitted that it wasn't true. I do think he deserves some opprobrium for lying to serve his political ends.

No. We know he was near Cambodia -- and possibly in it -- on Christmas Eve, and that he was in Cambodia in the next few months. And the date on which he was there was of rhetorical significance only to what he was saying.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Dave Wannstedt would love to have you as his GM.

Let me explain a way you can understand C. A few years ago the Lions would make the playoffs every year and lose in the first round. that wasn't good enough so the public demanded they fire the coach and QB. they've been something like 5 and 43 since then and haven't won a road game in years. Sometimes you have to recognize that what you've got may not be great but its better than the alternatives. See?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Let me explain a way you can understand C. A few years ago the Lions would make the playoffs every year and lose in the first round. that wasn't good enough so the public demanded they fire the coach and QB. they've been something like 5 and 43 since then and haven't won a road game in years. Sometimes you have to recognize that what you've got may not be great but its better than the alternatives. See?

Without Barry Sanders, W is nothing.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

From USA Today:'Texans for Truth' ad challenges Bush on Guard service

I just hope that the mainstream "liberal media" won't be afraid to pick up this story and run with it like FNC did with the SwiftBoats ads. The barrage of vitriol from the right regarding media bias may cause them to refrain.

S_A_M

P.S. On a separate but related note, Kerry must be taking Clinton's advice. After having thought early in August that he did not want to "lend credibility" to the SBVT ads by addressing the issue, he has learned different. Per Clinton -- every single thing the R's say you must counter. Every time they hit you, you must hit them harder. It doesn't speak well for our political system, but its probably good political strategy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There have been guys that have come forward and vouched for Kerrey too. Your point would be?

Are you serious. It is one thing to say you didn't see him there. That proves that, well, you didn't see him there. It doesn't prove that he wasn't there, and if others did see him there that is very credible to me.

On the swiftees, you have differing accounts from people that were all present at the events in question. I'm not sure why either group is more credible than the other.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So can we win the war on terror or not?

Depends what you mean by win. There will always be terrorist attacks at some level. I think we can win the fight against organized, "global terror," but we cannot eradicate terrorist attacks completely.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
As long as the DNC or Kerry aren't coordinating with them, sure it is OK.

The Reps on this board aren't hypocrites on the issue of freedom. We are all for it.

Better get Hank on Board -- he isn't too happy when his ox is being gored.

S_A_M

P.S. Yes, Hank, this is _infinitely_ worse that SBVT because Bush didn't "ask for it" by focusing his campaign on his service. In fact, he probably wishes that no one would ever discuss his National Guard service ever again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Without Barry Sanders, W is nothing.

US military=Barry Sanders. Kerry= the GM who decided not to renegotiate his bonus.