Power Line News

vladimir estragon - 18 September 2007 05:20 PM

Is it 1938, when appeasement simply emboldened the bad guys?

Or is it 1914, when rational, powerful nations started a destructive war that solved nothing, for no apparent reason?

A pretty good question, Vlad (and one that’s been kicked around some by people smarter than me).

I’d say closer to 1938 than to 1914, when one considers the motivation of the actors. 

In 1914, it would appear that the parties might have had enough common ground to settle matters. In 1938, you had one party (Hitler) that had no intent of abiding by any such agreement, because his goal was domination of the other side.  So I’d say 1938 is a better fit to today’s situation, given that the stated policy of Iran is elimination of Israel from the face of the earth.

Mike G.’s view of the world.

:lol:

I believe that America is quite rational and I further believe that IRan’s leadership is not. So 1938.

We keep appeasing the Iranians and the keep building nuclear capacity. When will we learn?

As far as Kerry is concerned, how many times do you have to ignore the newsflash that the bulk of the Swiftboaters allegations against Kerry were proved to be false.  Their connections to Bush supporters were made evident, (T Boone Pickens,HS Contrans, BJ Perry).  Early Swiftboat member Steve Hayes left the group after saying that they were,"twisting the truth about Kerry”, he even ended up voting for Kerry in the election.  Your own John McCain said that he believed the Swiftboat commercials were ‘dishonorable and untruthful’. 

So many of you people here live in a bubble of your own creation.  A veritable echo chamber of discontent, babbling on about the Libs, the moonbats, those America haters, etc, etc.

Nuff said!

oscar77 - 16 September 2007 05:56 PM

I am not saying that protesting is dishonorable, but wearing one’s uniform and covering up one’s face is dishonorable.  No one is saying that EVERYONE who has ever served in Iraq is for our effort there.  But why do those who are against it get disproportionate coverage over those who are not? 

Silly me, I already know the answer to that.  We are talking about the crowd who found Kerry credible and nearly all the officers and men who served with him (i.e. the “Swift Boat” crowd) NOT credible. 

As a vet, I will say to other vets:  be against it all you want.  But be up front about it.  And don’t say things that are untrue.  And don’t be taken in by the left, when they embrace you as long as you are saying what they want.  They despise you nonetheless, and will turn on you as soon as you stop saying what they want.

1.  If one is active duty military, one is prohibited from demonstrating.  And covering one’s face is a dishonorable action, since one is breaking the UCMJ.  If one is not active duty, there is no reason to cover one’s face, no?  So in that case, these are just cowards, or people who had no connection to the military who wish to pretend that they do.  So we have few choices here:  someone wearing a military uniform with their face covered is either a lawbreaker, a coward, or a pretender...

Sometimes good people must do (what you consider), BAAD things!
When their own commander in chief is a lying sack o crap, and when they have been told to do something that they know inside themselves is wrong, than yes the UCMJ says that they have the right, the DUTY to disobey illegal orders, even those from the monkey.  In the same spirit, a soldier should feel that the time comes when enough is enough.  I know you people here live in a static world where nothing the US ever does ever goes south, nothing the president does is ever criminal and the GOP always leads the way to truth and justice.  So, if a soldier protests and some of them cover their faces, they are probably conflicted.  Some big mystery that is…

2.  re: “the bulk of the Swiftboaters allegations against Kerry were proved to be false.”

“Kerry’s phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compel us to step forward.” The group challenged the legitimacy of each of the combat medals awarded to Kerry by the U.S. Navy, and the disposition of his discharge. (See John Kerry military service controversy.) Further, SBVT said that Kerry’s later criticism of the unpopular war was a “betrayal of trust” with other soldiers, and that by his activism he had caused direct “harm” to soldiers still at war.” (Wikipedia)

a) Phony war crimes charges:  Were phony.  Unless you have evidence that essentially every soldier who served in Viet Nam was a war criminal.
b) Exaggerated claims:  Claimed to be in Cambodia, now wasn’t.  Claimed Purple Hearts for scratches that everyone else would ignore.  Made movies of himself - all fake - designed for later “war hero” use.
c) Deliberate misrepresentations of...Swift Boat operations:  True.

So which of these were “proved to be false”?

And by the way, “connections to Bush supporters”...true for some, others were Dems.  And so what if some were Republicans?  By your lights, only Dems could be relied on to tell the truth!  Just a little hint:  Kerry was spoken for by Kerry supporters, too!  Imagine that!  How horrible!

As far as Kerry goes, I don’t care for him much.  I think he’s intelligent, he served his country honorably, (unlike Deferment Dick Cheney and AWOL George Bush.).  He’s an elitest of the worst kind and I believe his run in ‘04 was a joke.  But the whole BS Swiftboat deal has been mostly refuted and has been for quite awhile now.  http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

War crimes charges were proven PHONY?!  Not even close.  How many Vietnam vets that saw action have come forward and spoken of the atrocities that they saw or were ordered to commit?  So, there was never officially any war crimes trial against the US command?  That hardly removes the cold hard facts of war.  War IS hell, people die, frightened soldiers lose their sense of right and wrong, desperate situations call for desperate measures, etc etc.  just because they were never ‘officially’ charged as ‘war crimes’.  Read the recently declassifed Army files here and be ashamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Crimes_Working_Group_Files

You ‘America right or wrong’ people frighten the hell out of me.  You wallow in ignorance and you revel in it.

Talk about “bubbles”.  MikeG, you are a prime example....

Yea, I live in a bubble....a bubble called reality.

MikeG - 18 September 2007 02:00 AM

If you think I come off as arrogant, I’m sorry, but, the day I come off as ill informed I’ll send the ice truck to Hades.

Sorry, pal, but you’d better get that truck gassed and ready.

MikeG - 18 September 2007 02:13 AM

As far as ‘elsewhere’ goes.  Do you think that Iran is just going to blow off a few nukes ‘elsewhere’ and not expect worldwide outrage and retribution?

Iran won’t just “blow it off” because they’ll be incapacitated.
As for “worldwide outrage,” assuredly in the MSM.
As for retribution, no.

You of course, think it’s OK for the US to preemptively strike Iran without any provocation. 

Iran has been provoking us for a long time, but certainly almost every day in the last 2-3 years, so it definitely won’t be “without any provocation.”
(Israel just hit them in Syria where they were building nuclear facilities.)
A preemptive strike would certainly be reasonable to take our their nuclear missile sites when even France is saying there’s a real problem.

Which in turn would turn Russia, China and the entire Middle East against us.  Great idea.  Your lack of prospective is impressive!

Russia would get itchy, but Ahmadinnerjacket has made his threats and saber-rattling no secret.
And you mean “perspective” and not “prospective.”

Question:  What makes you think “mutually assured destruction” would deter Iran from using their nukes on Israel and elsewhere?[

We don’t practive M.A.D. with Iran, because quite a few don’t care if they die in a nuke strike as martyrs.
MAD only works if the other side wants to live, too.

MikeG - 19 September 2007 12:14 AM

When their own commander in chief is a lying sack o crap,

President Bush has never given me reason to believe he’s lying and I find him a fine person and certainly not what you called him.
That man is our President--show some respect!

and when they have been told to do something that they know inside themselves is wrong, than yes the UCMJ says that they have the right, the DUTY to disobey illegal orders, even those from the monkey. 

Wrong.
I don’t know who “the monkey” is, although I suspect it’s another “cute” reference to the Commander-in-Chief, but our soldiers do not have the leeway to judge whether orders are “wrong” or not--their duty is to obey orders.
If they don’t obey orders, they’d better get ready for a court martial and some jail time where they and their conscience “inside themselves” can think about what they’ve done and whether it was really wrong or not.

As far as Kerry goes, I don’t care for him much.  I think he’s intelligent

His grades at Yale were lower than President Bush’s.

he served his country honorably,

--this is in doubt.
Kerry still won’t release his full military records.

(unlike Deferment Dick Cheney and AWOL George Bush.).

President Bush was never AWOL. He served honorably in the National Guard for several years flying the Widowmaker.

He’s an elitest of the worst kind and I believe his run in ‘04 was a joke.

You can believe it was a “joke” all you want but the man got 63 million votes and was re-elected President.

But the whole BS Swiftboat deal has been mostly refuted and has been for quite awhile now.

Oh, yeah?
Well, I’ve never heard one of the Swiftboaters’ testimony successfully refuted.

War crimes charges were proven PHONY?!  Not even close.

That’s right. They were phony--John Kerry never provided a single name to Congress.  H

ow many Vietnam vets that saw action have come forward and spoken of the atrocities that they saw or were ordered to commit?

Just a guess, but NONE.

So, there was never officially any war crimes trial against the US command?

No.

You ‘America right or wrong’ people frighten the hell out of me

You “Blame America/Bush” first people frighten the hell out of me!

Yea, I live in a bubble....a bubble called reality.

No-one who lives in reality would support Ron Paul for President (or Gravel or Kucinich).