Mitch pondered: "...one wonders what the likes of Joe Biden would say had they been in power back then."

Bush would have already declared "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Saratoga the day after Jimmy Doolittle's raid.

The film is a rare thing: a boring WWII movie. It is also perhaps the most factually inaccurate war film ever made.

Leave it to Mitch to innacurately and uselessly politicize an historic anniversary.

News Flash to Mitch: Democrats were in power and the dominant party among soldiers who faught that campaign. In truth, the "greatest generation" embraced the concepts of fair days wage for fair days work, public education, egalitarianism (for the laberors) in law and the workplace. It has been the me-generation baby boomers that rolled back their progress. Keep trying to wrap yourself in the American Flag defended by the exact opposite of your political stance, it makes you look the fool.

It was the Repos who opposed even engaging Hitler, declaring he was "too powerful" and the mission "too dangerous".

Black is white, up is down, and truth are lies in Mitchland.

PB

AC: Saratoga wasn't on the Doolittle raid; Hornet and Enterprise were. Save it for when you have to make a factual argument! ;-) [/military history geek off]

Tim: BotB was just awful. The inaccuracies made my head reel; GIs lined up, Civil War-style, shoulder to shoulder behind rock breastworks in the town square of St. Vith; the actor playing the CO of the 2nd Armored Division ordering the infantry and artillery to the rear; "This is going to be a tank battle".

Blah.

Ah, Peeb - an inaccurate jeremiad against my supposed inaccuracy:

"Leave it to Mitch to innacurately and uselessly politicize an historic anniversary."

Nothing political about it (to say nothign of inaccurate); pusillanimity like Biden's surmounts politics. I'm not attacking Democrats; Joe Lieberman, after all, is a Democrat. No, I'm attacking Joe Biden; Lying Weasel, Delaware.

"News Flash to Mitch: Democrats were in power and the dominant party among soldiers who faught that campaign. In truth, the "greatest generation" embraced the concepts of fair days wage for fair days work, public education, egalitarianism (for the laberors) in law and the workplace."

All of which the Democrat party since about 1972 has tossed over the side. Hell, if the Democrats were the same party they were in 1945 or even 1960, I might have remained a Democrat myself. I said *might*.

"It was the Repos who opposed even engaging Hitler, declaring he was "too powerful" and the mission "too dangerous".

Er, PB? Please show evidence, NOW, of ANY *significant* Republican opposing the war, or Roosevelt's conduct of it, after 12/8/41 - or, against Hitler, after 12/11/41.

"Black is white, up is down, and truth are lies in Mitchland."

And then I respond, and everything falls back into place.

angryclown,

No, Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" when we were reached and held Bagdad. The more accurate analogy would be declaring mission accomplished when we were entrenched in Berlin.

It would be like declaring VE day but then spending several years to rebuild Germany, develop a democratic society and get their economy on stable footing, while all the while losing soldiers. We lost a lot of GI's during the first 3 years AFTER VE day. Some due to accidents, others due to guerilla (terrorist) attacks.

That would be the accurate analogy.

Hell, if the Democrats were the same party they were in 1945 or even 1960, I might have remained a Democrat myself. I said *might*.

Thanks, Mitch. Couldn't have said it any better myself. Funny how many Ex-Democrats there are.

Bush would have already declared "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Saratoga the day after Jimmy Doolittle's raid.

Posted by angryclown at December 16, 2005 03:06 PM

Getting the purple finger is annoying, isn't it AC?

Getting the purple finger is annoying, isn't it AC?

Posted by Kermit at December 16, 2005 03:49 PM

Purple fingers I can deal with, Kerm. It's the brown ones you guys get from having your thumbs up your asses all the time that I don't like.

You are attacking Joe Biden, rather than dealing with your own problems... and politicizing a topic in a meaningless, unecessary way.

The Dems are still the same Dems, the only change has been race politics, but your issue has always been about the economic side of things, the anti-tax side of things. Those same 1945 Dems believed in Estate Taxes, corporate taxes, decent wages and public education, all things you detest.

The problem is not with the Dems Mitch, its that you and your party can't get over the New Deal, and yet try to embrace the immense sense of community and "we're all in it together" that came out of the Great Depression. Those folks were erudite about what we need to do as a collective society, call Biden all the names you want, it won't erase that they did something, as a common cause, that you fundamentally stand in opposition to at near every turn.

PB

"Democrats were in power and the dominant party among soldiers who faught that campaign. In truth, the "greatest generation" embraced the concepts of fair days wage for fair days work, public education, egalitarianism (for the laberors) in law and the workplace." Yeah, egalitarianism if you were white & male. Does anybody, democrat or republican, NOT believe in a "fair days wage for fair days work"? And please remind me what public school FDR attended?
The 30's and 40's were a more collective age, not a more egalitarian one.

"You are attacking Joe Biden, rather than dealing with your own problems."

Joe Biden IS one of my problems.

"and politicizing a topic in a meaningless, unecessary way."

Sorry, PB. You've done the politicizing. I made a *personal* attack against Biden. You brought party into it.

"The Dems are still the same Dems, the only change has been race politics,"

Bollocks! Good lord, Peeb, I know you write a lot of things to try to get rises out of people, but this is beneath and below the call of duty!

After 1968-'72, the Dems made race, abortion, stylized pacifism and (with the exception of Clinton) the Welfare State their key agendae. The Dems are NOT the same Dems.

"Those same 1945 Dems believed in Estate Taxes, corporate taxes, decent wages and public education, all things you detest."

Wrong again. I almost wrote "wrong, as usual", but that'd be kinda inflammatory, nu? Estate taxes are dumb, corporate taxes are necessary but a dumb idea as a vehicle for social engineering; I'm all for decent wages, and especially for building a society that empowers people to *earn* them; my father and two of my grandparents taught public schools, so you really are diverging from reality here...

"The problem is not with the Dems Mitch, its that you and your party can't get over the New Deal,"

25 years ahead of ya, Peeb. Reagan, like me a former liberal Democrat, got us over that just fine.

"Those folks were erudite about what we need to do as a collective society,"

Bzzzzt. They were *communitarians*, which is not the same as *collective* and - taa daa! - isn't the least bit at odds with conservatism.

" call Biden all the names you want, it won't erase that they did something,"

Er, the two points are utterly unrelated. And there are no bones in ice cream. Non sequitir!

"that you fundamentally stand in opposition to at near every turn."

To the excesses of the nannystate that tries to wrap itself, falsely, in bogus altruism? Dang skippy I oppose it.

"Purple fingers I can deal with, Kerm. It's the brown ones you guys get from having your thumbs up your asses all the time that I don't like."

Conservatives: Free elections in a country that was a totalitarian cesspool.

Liberals: Poop jokes.

Your side may well have delivered the Iraqis from a secular Sunni dictatorship to a religious Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran.

If so, the poop jokes would probably be more useful.

"Your side may well have delivered the Iraqis from a secular Sunni dictatorship to a religious Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran."

And we might also have delivered them into a world run by Grace Slick, where they'll be required to wear red rain slickers and hum the Ooompa Loompa song.

Sure, the Shi'a could take over. They could take over in the US one day, too, but at the moment it grows less likely with each election...

"If so, the poop jokes would probably be more useful."

More than most of the mainstream media's coverage on the event, anyway.

(You can't expect me to let that one past the plate, can you?)

AC- "Your side may well have delivered the Iraqis from a secular Sunni dictatorship to a religious Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran."

So do you think an immediate US withdrawal of forces from Iraq will help or hinder the creation of "a religious Shiite dictatorship aligned with Iran."?

PB: "The Dems are still the same Dems, the only change has been race politics,..."

JF Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Howard Dean: "I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years. Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately."

Nope, the Democrats haven't changed at all! PB, you're full of it. There was a time when the Democrats were fully engaged in fighting communism and other totalitarian states. Remember, it was them that got us into that little something called the Vietnam War using the "Domino Theory." After that mismanged fiasco they took to only opposing totalitarian regimes that were aligned with the US.

On one point, though, PB is right: the Democrats are still the party of the 1930s when it comes to the economy. Perhaps their motto in the next cycle should be "20th century solutions to 21st century problems!"

Yeah, I'm one of those "Reagan Democrats" who eventually wised up.

Terry,

I think what I said was that those ideals, fairness in wages, decent standards of living, public education, were and are the bedrock of the Democrats, and Oh by the way, are the bedrock of a strong middle class, the foundation of that liberty you undoubtedly cherish.

Mitch,

Grace Slick isn't the issue, bringing up canards isn't the issue either, the problem is the Shiaa outcome that you all (ok the "pres") had no plan for, and still doesn't, because this election will legitimize their dominance (most likely). To say it becomes less likely each day is howling at the wind, you have NO proof of that "less likelihood", and there is massive evidence it is MORE likely, specifically, the fact that the dominant party in the Shiaa areas is the fundamentalist Shiaa movement. Tell me, was Grace Slick on the ballot in Basra? No??? Then stop bringing up little green men stupidity.

The real issue is that you all have very few real facts behind your arguments, so you attack. You can't handle the fact that the Greatest generation, even today, doesn't embrace your view, and stands counter to it, precisely because it WAS their dedication to decency and fair play that helped win WWII. You all believe in unequal because "you're better" politics. The US SHOULD dominate because, we gots the guns, God is on our side, or just because the US "is the greatest country on earth." WWII was about saying NO country has the right to impose it's will on another, but here we are, pre-emptively taking out non-existent WMD, violating the ideals of St. Simone and John Locke (as well as Jefferson).

No, the only thing you can do is attack, not defend your policies, because they are indefensible. The President wire-taps (probably illegally) US Citizens, no matter, it was only FORIEGN communication, he imprisons 1100 Muslim Americans, NO MATTER, they were Muslims, he imprisons US Citizens indefinetely, well NO MATTER they were bad people. The Greatest Generation fought for those laws you all willingly turn a blind eye to violations of, precisely because they believed they should not be so cheaply cast aside. Defend his wire-taps, defend his non-plan for the aftermath of the fall of Houssien, defend his claiming Iraq was an imminent threat of turning weapons over to Al Qaeda (when he had reports saying the exact opposite).

The point is that you won't because you are indoctrinated in the Lee Atwater school of politics, attack first last and always, regardless of the fact you have all the power, your problem is the Democrats always, you're never to blame for your failures, lies and abuses. Never admit flaws, always attack. Well you know what, you have to explain because YOU ARE IN CHARGE, you're leading now, so lead, prove you can do so ethically, prove it's not all about winning, it's about good governance, not just appointing FEMA failure cronies. Katrina cost more lives and money than 9/11, but is Bush out there stumping for action on Katrina any more, hell no, because it doesn't sell votes.

You all were good challengers, you helped the Dems stay more fiscally prudent, but you are disasterous champions. Iraq is a collosal mess, say it's not, explain why, without blaming Joe Biden.. Joe Biden didn't make Iraq a mess, YOU DID (you being Bush and his pro-war cult).

PB

PB-
Well gee whiz, I cherish those beliefs too. Believe it or not, I am not a republican. I registered as an independant. And believe it or not, I can decide what I "cherish" without any help from you. My working class credentials are unassailable. You wanna show off and cf?

PB -- Katrina cost more money and lives than 9/11?
9/11 would have been 30,000 deaths (and the destruction of either the Capital Bldg or White House) were it not for lucky timing, countless acts of heroism, and the grace of God.
The next attack they were planning would have been infinitely worse. It's President Bush's job to do everything in his power to prevent it. Thank God it's not yours -- or John Kerry's. I would have trusted Truman with the job, or Kennedy. Not Howard Dean.
Comparing a massive terrorist attack to a hurricane is repulsive.

excerpts from a typical pb rant:

"The President wire-taps (probably illegally) US Citizens, no matter, it was only FORIEGN communication, he imprisons 1100 Muslim Americans, NO MATTER, they were Muslims, he imprisons US Citizens indefinetely, well NO MATTER they were bad people."

If these steps had been taken pre 9/11 there may not have been a 9/11 (thanks Bill Clinton). We can't know this for sure. What we do know (and even pb and his fellow travellers can't deny) there has been no repeat of 9/11 on American soil.
pb (and his fellow travellers) can't seem to grasp one fundamental truth: 9/11 changed everything. I'm sorry if this bothers your delicate sensibitlities. Would you and the NYT and the Katie Courics of America preferred the declaration of martial law in the wake of 9/11? I doubt it.
1100 muslim Americans? pb, did you pull this directly out of your butt, or did you have help?
Self delusion is facinating, but somewhat repulsive to witness.

Purple fingers I can deal with, Kerm. It's the brown ones you guys get from having your thumbs up your asses all the time that I don't like.
Posted by angryclown at December 16, 2005 04:35 PM

Is this rectal preoccupation a New York thing? Or is Brokeback Mountain still fresh in your fevered, somewhat limited imagination?

Anybody who asserts that the Democrats of today are the same as the Democrats of 1960, regarding national defense strategy is a complte blithering idiot, or a shameless liar. PB, go read JFK's speeches during the 1960 campaign, and then go read what John Kerry was saying about what approach the U.S. should take vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in 1984. Go read JFK's inaugural address, and then read what George McGovern said in the well of the Senate as that body debated cutting off further appropriations to aid South Vietnam and the Lon Nol government in Cambodia.

Are you truly so utterly ignorant, or is it simply a matter of you being a pathological liar? I abandoned the Democratic Party after seeing, up- close, some of the remains of Pol Pot's handiwork along the Thai-Cambodian border in the early 80's, and reading what the 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate had to say about the prospects of the Khmer Rouge coming to power just prior to them doing so. Until the Democrats utterly renounce the McGovern foreign policy wing of their party, which John Kerry was a charter member of, they could agree with me 100% on every other issue and still not get my vote.

Educate yourself, or stop lying, please.

Will Allen observed:
"Anybody who asserts that the Democrats of today are the same as the Democrats of 1960, regarding national defense strategy is a complte blithering idiot, or a shameless liar."

I couldn't agree with you more, Will. In the Johnson administration, the Democrats finalized a process that had begun with Hubert Humphrey in the '48 convention. They finally cut their ties with the racists of the South. Now they vote Republican.

Sorry, Will, I apparently mischaracterized your point! You were talking about defense. You're still correct. The Democrats used to believe that nation-building was an costly, dangerous exercise in futility, now it's national policy. Oh wait, that's the Republicans. And they used to believe in fiscal responsibility, now they run record deficits. No, sorry, Republicans again. But I'm sure you must be right about something Will. The spelling of your name maybe?

Yeah, clown, that nation-building in South Korea was a real waste of time.

Do you endeavor to appear so ignorant, or does it just come naturally? Given your charecterization of our current deficit as record in size, which it is only by the most trivial measure (BTW, I'll happily shave three or four hundred million off domestic spending), I think you must really being trying to achieve new heights in numbskullery. Congratulations, you're clearly succeeding.

South Korea? I see, Will, your plan has us keeping tens of thousands of troops in the country for the next, oh, half century or so. Of course Iraq more than four times the size of South Korea, so maybe we'll have to adjust the troop level upwards just a bit.

Christ on a cracker, if I were as dumb as you, I'd keep my opinions out of sight in the basement, rather than in a big old picture window for everyone to see. But then I guess I wouldn't be as dumb as you.

clown, we haven't militarily needed (in the sense that they were needed to repel an invasion from the North) that many troops in South Korea for many, many years. Are you truly so stupid?

Look, you were the nitwit who posited that all exercises in nation-building are futile. South Korea plainly illustrates the fatuity of such a generalization. If you don't want your idiotic assertions (like the one about the supposedly record deficit now being run) called out, then stop making idiotic assertions.

Rather than making easily refuted, numbskulled, assertions, one could actually endeavor to establish that this particular attempt at nation-building is ill-advised. However, to do so in a non-cretinous fashion would require an honest examination of the alternatives prior to the invasion. In particular, one would have to admit that the sanctions regime that had kept Hussein in a box was no longer viable, for , among other very real circumstances, two members of the U.N. Security Council no longer supported them, and were actively subverting them on a covert basis. One would have to admit that the only reason Hussein allowed resumed inspections was because there were two divisions parked on his border, divisions which could not be kept in place for months on end, given the political realities prior to invasion.

One would have to admit that absent an invasion, the Baathists were overwhelmingly likely to remain in power for decades to come, and with no sanctions regime to constrain them, since oil revenues insulated them from outside pressure. One would also have to explore the implications of having the entirety of the Persian Gulf oil reserves under wholly despotic rule for decades into the future, which inevitably put the population of the U.S. into conflict with the populations of the Persian Gulf. This is inevitable because it would be the money we give to the despots, in return for access to oil, which allows the despots to maintain control.

Now, if I can head off another predictable diversion into idiocy on your part, wherein you complain that the Saudis are also despotic, well, yes, they are. However, forcibly removing the House of Saud from power is still orders of magnitude more difficult, economically, politically, and culturally, than was the case with the Baathists in Iraq. If you need to have it explained why this is the case, well, you're just too damned ignorant to have a conversation with regarding this topic.

Once all these circumstances were examined, then a useful counter-factual history could be put forth in which leaving the Baathists in Iraq in power for decades to come was a preferable option. Of course, examining these circumstances calls into real question as to how viable the status quo ante really was, and thus imbeciles such as yourself instead make insipid generalizations which ignore the real circumstances which the U.S. was confronting, and what the actual historical record is.

Is it possible that this attempt at nation-building will fail disastrously? Of course it is, for what is being attempted is extraordinarily difficult. In order to evaluate whether an extraordinarily difficult task is worth risking, however, one has to closely examine whether the likely alternatives are viable. If one doesn't wish to confront these realities, of course, one simply stomps one's foot and writes stupid things. Congratulations.

"I see, Will, your plan has us keeping tens of thousands of troops in the country for the next, oh, half century or so. Of course Iraq more than four times the size of South Korea, so maybe we'll have to adjust the troop level upwards just a bit."

Since there's nothing analogous to North Korea adjacent to Iraq, that's not remotely true.

Mitch observed: Since there's nothing analogous to North Korea adjacent to Iraq, that's not remotely true.

Tell it to Will Allen. It's his example - his best point too, apparently - judging from a quick skim through the really long post he just puked up.

Willard Allen hissy-fitted: Look, you were the nitwit who posited that all exercises in nation-building are futile.

Maybe you can point out exactly where I said that. In fact, I merely noted the flip-flop that your side executed shortly after the 2000 election.

It's called "reading comprehension," Wilbur. Look into it.

Mitch is liable for neither commenters' dicey examples, nor for other commenters' missing other commenters' points.

Fact is, we've built a several nations successfully; Japan, Germany, Italy (in fact, all of post-war Western and Southern Europe via the Marshall Plan - continent-building?), the ROK, and indirectly, post-Soviet Eastern Europe.

The troops we keep in South Korea have never had anything to do with supporting the ROK's democratic government (indeed, they've stood by through a couple of military coups), but are purely to defend against external military aggression.

Will's example was good, albeit possibly vaguely stated.

"I merely noted the flip-flop that your side executed shortly after the 2000 election."

To be fair, the "flip flop" happened after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

You claim to be a Noo Yawker. Perhaps you remember those.

So Iraq is different because it is likely to face internal *and* external threats, Mitch?

Obviously the North Korean regime presents a special case - again, not the best example that Wilhelm Allen could have chosen. Kim is impressively armed with nukes and conventional weapons all pointed in the same direction. Plus he heads a psychotic society engineered by him and his dad. But Iraq will eventually have to defend itself from Iran, in addition to rebellious internal elements and Islamist freebooters.

Whether or not you think it can be done, I think we can agree that it's a tall order. I just wonder why wingnuts like Wilberforce Allen seem to think nation-building, while impossible in Haiti, is a walk through the park in Iraq.

I remember them well, Kitty Cat. But the conquest of Iraq was a policy in search of a justification from the day the Supreme Court told Al Gore to go grow a beard.

"But the conquest of Iraq was a policy in search of a justification from the day the Supreme Court told Al Gore to go grow a beard. "

Praise be to allah!

Clown, I never stated that I thought nation-building in Haiti was futile. Whether it is something that the U.S. has a vital interest in pursuing is another matter. I also labeled the task in Iraq as "extraordinarily difficult", as opposed to a walk in the park. It's called "reading comprehension". Look into it. Also, if you don't wish to have your position on the relative futility of nation-building misinterpreted, don't adopt a tone of sarcasm towards those who are supporting such a project. It's called "clear writing". Look into it.

Mitch, I think the troops in Korea are mostly an example of the inertia that develops in all political arrangements. Other than launching missiles and in engaging in an artillery barrage, I have large doubts whether the North Koreans, for a perhaps a couple of decades, have had the capability to engage in large-scale, sustained, offensive operations. I mean, if the armies of the former Soviet Union have suffered terrible defeats while attempting to go on the offensive in Central Asia for many years now, what are the chances that the North Korean Army would be better at the task?

That isn't to say they couldn't create a hell of a mess, just that I doubt they have the ability to actually invade South Korea, and defeat the ROK army.

Finally, clown, if you have something to add beyond pounding your shoe on the table, do so. If not, please have the courtesy to refrain from exposing others to the vacuum which exists between your ears.

Will Allen, it's called a last name. Look into it. Two first names is just not the same thing.

I'd be interested in knowing why you think Iraq would be immune to "the inertia that develops in all political arrangements," resulting in a five-decade American garrison of South Korea.

No, actually I wouldn't. I mean I'm already doubling my recommended daily allowance of far-right blowhards just by reading some of the comments on this blog.

Clown, I never said that the same inertia would not develop. It's called "reading comprehension". Look into it. If, in fifty years, Iraq has undergone the same sort of change that South Korea has in the past fifty, then maintaining a garrison, due to the inertia that inevitably develops in political arrangements, will be a relatively minor negative aspect in an overwhelmingly positive outcome.

Keep pounding the table, clown.

Wilfred Allen explained: "If, in fifty years, Iraq has undergone the same sort of change that South Korea has in the past fifty, then maintaining a garrison, due to the inertia that inevitably develops in political arrangements, will be a relatively minor negative aspect in an overwhelmingly positive outcome."

It's possible you're right about that, Willy Wonka. But what do you suppose the over-under would be on public support for the war on those terms? 10 percent? 20?

I dunno, clown, and I don't care all that much.

Even for the angryclown this is too much to pass up. He doth roar forth:

"No, actually I wouldn't. I mean I'm already doubling my recommended daily allowance of far-right blowhards just by reading some of the comments on this blog."

"Will Allen, it's called a last name. Look into it. Two first names is just not the same thing."

First we have AC calling someone else a blowhard. Then he complains about someone having two first names when he won't provide his own.

Pot, meet kettle.

(Mitch, you weren't kidding about trying to yank chains. I'm still trying to attach a different avatar to him than Shrek -- it just seems so appropriate.)

No, no, no, Nerdbert. The appellation is so entirely suitable it needs no improvement: He is angry, and he is a clown.

gamble online Nobody knows the formula for Coca-Cola Its the most closely guarded http://www.casinophiles.com gamble online one the Professor unlocks the locks on the door Finally he opens it [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] gamble online[/URL] With a sigh Marty set his guitar down and went downstairs.