How's this for different morals?

[ILWL]

Lena, how did the following wars workout for us:

-Revolutionary War
-War of 1812
-Civil War
-Spanish-American War
-World War 1
-World War 2
-Korean War (until Truman stopped listening to MacArthur)
-Vietnam War (until the media turned the Tet Offensive into a "disaster" that marked the begining of the end in that war)

We fight fire with fire, there IS no water to fight evil with.

Do you really fail to see that it is your tendency to use unmeasured and biblical terms such as evil - which totally undermines your argument and/or political position?

During the Cold war - the US had more in common with it's Soviet adversaries then it was prepared to admit.

Now in this fresh wave - perhaps there really should be some soul searching on the part of the US (And Britain) as to the similarities they share with their apparent foe!

[myron myron]

[Blond Adult Girl]

Do you really fail to see that it is your tendency to use unmeasured and biblical terms such as evil - which totally undermines your argument and/or political position?

During the Cold war - the US had more in common with it's Soviet adversaries then it was prepared to admit.

Now in this fresh wave - perhaps there really should be some soul searching on the part of the US (And Britain) as to the similarities they share with their apparent foe!

Evil is like the law of gravity: it exists whether you believe in it or not. All these nations that we fought against were REALLY BAD people...EVIL people. And they viewed us a REALLY BAD or EVIL people.

Evil is not a biblical term by any means. It exists just as much as the sun and the stars exist.

[Lena]

Didn't ley some senile 75 year old general who the Chinesse had beat the pants off get us in a needless world war three with China= So your calling General Douglas MacArthur-the architect of our war in the . against Japan-a "senile" man? Nice!
-We lost but in some ways won . The war was never winnable unless they went nucleur , too many enemys and too much jungle for them to hide and our allies were useless ( think my ex step dad who fought there wud have rather shot one of the leeches who expected America to fight there war then the enemy ) . I have heard but won since it made China more anti Russian and on our side=the war was winnable-but because that panzie Lyndon Beyotch johnson and the american people somehow thought that the civilians in Vietnam were "innocent," we didn't relentlesly bomb the guerralas when they ran into villages and towns. If we had bombed them and drenched them in Agent Orange no matter WHERE they were, we would have won the war in 3 years. But NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!


What a funny cliche . You fight with brains first .............then whatever else seems needed.=Yeah, and fire is ALWAYS needed. Fire POWER, that is!

Mac Arthur won the war with Japan ? Maybe but not the one they had on earth. He helped but was not the big hero .

Read how even though he said they'd never take the Phillipines the Japs ran him out of there. Also read he took a 500,000 in gold bribe to take the preisdent of the Phillipines with him when he escaped even though it was illegal for Americans to own gold .

Also he spent most of the war isolated in some place called New Guinea then in 1944 got to attack the Phillipines after he'd been run out .Sounds like while he helped it was really the navy and marines that drove Japan out of the P acific . Also he didn't even know about the atomic bomb till after it was dropped .

They say at the Korean war he was more of a problem then anything else since he was so old & ditzy and a egomaniac . The army and joint chiefs couldn't wait to put someone in more mentally coherant in but he was such a sacred cow to right wingers they held off.Then he got uppidity with Truman and soon Truman's foot was up his ass................yippee for the little guy!

Just read how we killed something like over 2 million Viet Namesse but they kept on fighting and fighting . There was never a end in sight sort of nucleur genocide and it wasn't worth it and who wants to do something like that ?

The big thing about TET was that the viet cong kicked ass but for months the American people had been told the war was almost won . The big shots lying caught up with them ...............like with iraq now.

It was all useless anyway since like iraq now we couldn't come up with local allies to run there own country . We wud have been there forever , like it seems we wil be in iraq now ! Talk about a disaster ..............

As someone who comes from hell and has seen all kinds of fighting including a gang war will stick with what I said about first you fight with your brain then what the situation needs....................

The war mongering of rush , fox news, and Bill O' is just ignorant babbling meant to entertain ...........don't fall for it and be a fool.

[mogadishu]

Yes... I believe it was wrong. According to myron, you're argument also contains the fallacy of false dichotomy.

And what about choosing stalin over hitler? Was that wrong?

I... don't believe I see the relevance.

[Blond Adult Girl]

Mac Arthur won the war with Japan ? Maybe but not the one they had on earth. He helped but was not the big hero. Read how even though he said they'd never take the Phillipines the Japanaesse ran him out of there. Also read he took a 500,000 in gold bribe to take the preisdent of the Phillipines with him when he escaped even though it was illegal for Americans to own gold . Also he spent most of the war isolated in some place called New Guinea then in 1944 got to attack the Phillipines after he'd been run out .Sounds like while he helped it was really the navy and marines that drove Japan out of the P acific . Also he didn't even know about the atomic bomb till after it was dropped . They say at the Korean war he was more of a problem then anything else since he was so old & ditzy and a egomaniac . The army and joint chiefs couldn't wait to put someone in more mentally coherant in but he was such a sacred cow to right wingers they held off.Then he got uppidity with Truman and soon Truman's foot was up his ass................yippee for the little guy! You don't know your history woman. it was MacArthur who made virtually every importent strategical move in . and in the Korean War. it was MacArthur who LED the marines and the navy in battles like the Midway, Coral sea, Okinawa, etc. it was MacArthur who fulfilled his promise by returning to the Philippines and taking it away from Japan. And it was MacArthur who made that brilliant move in the Korean War to attack the communists just outside of China. But then truman stepped in and nullified that spectacular accomplishment. We could have taken out china, but Truman didn't have the spine to fight them. how sad! Macarthur was the hero of the war in the ., and he was the hero of the Korean war. You just don't like the fact that he embraced war and bloodshed. You probably don't think very highly of Marque De Lafoyette and William Sherman either?
Just read how we killed something like over 2 million Viet Namesse but they kept on fighting and fighting . There was never a end in sight sort of nucleur genocide and it wasn't worth it and who wants to do something like that ? The big thing about TET was that the viet cong kicked ass but for months the American people had been told the war was almost won . The big shots lying caught up with them ...............like with iraq now. The viet cong DID NOT kick our a$$. We killed millions of them, while they only killed 58,000 of our troops-and thats 58,000 troops for the entire war. Going into 1969, the total was much lower. the we DESTROYED them at the Tet offensive, but according to the media, the Viet Cong "shouldn't have been able to attack in the first place." they shoved that down the the American peoples throats, we bought into it, and a victory became a loss. Dispicable!

As someone who comes from hell and has seen all kinds of fighting including a gang war will stick with what I said about first you fight with your brain then what the situation needs....................and like i said: fire is ALWAYS needed. Fire POWER, that is

The war mongering of rush , fox news, and Bill O' is just ignorant babbling meant to entertain ...........don't fall for it and be a fool. So is the defeatist, pathetic, spineless cowardice of Olbermann, Press, Scarbrough, Schwartz, and the rest of the liberal comrades.

[mogadishu]

Evil is like the law of gravity: it exists whether you believe in it or not. All these nations that we fought against were REALLY BAD people...EVIL people. And they viewed us a REALLY BAD or EVIL people.

Yes, especially britain.

Evil is not a biblical term .

Now I've heard everything.

[Blond Adult Girl]

Yes... I believe it was wrong. According to myron, you're argument also contains the fallacy of false dichotomy.

And what about choosing stalin over hitler? Was that wrong?

I... don't believe I see the relevance.

Stalin killed 10 million of his own people, just like Saddam did, and yet, we sided with both Stalin and Saddam in order to take out what we considerd the GREATER of two evils-Hitler and iran reespectively. You said that we were WRONG to side with Saddam in order to take out iran, so we're we ALSO wrong in siding with stalin in order to take out Hitler?

[mogadishu]

And i pointed out that the comparison was IRRELEVANT.

[Blond Adult Girl]

And i pointed out that the comparison was IRRELEVANT.

No. You just don't want to answer the question because you are trapped.

-If you say "yes, it was a good idea," then you i know I'll come right back and say "then how come siding with Saddam was a BAD idea? You're using a double standard!"

-If you say "no, it was a bad idea," then you know I'll come right back and say "but we won! How was it a 'bad' idea?"

[mogadishu]

Nonsense. The question is irrelevant to the point I argued - successfully - that neo-con policy does not necessarily revolve around defence of human rights. You suggested america did not know about Saddam's human rights violations when they backed him. A vain hope, as it turned out.

Now. You're suggesting a moral basis for supporting Saddam, despite his human rights violations, on the basis that one had no choice. I pointed out that that appears to be a false dichotomy, unless you can prove those were the only two alternatives. You ignored that point and tried to make a comparison between the Iran/iraq war and world war two.

The irrelevance of the comparison lies in the fact that intervention in WW2 was generally accepted to be a war of national survival. The onus is therefore on you to prove exactly why do you think that america had to back either iran or Iraq?

[Blond Adult Girl]

Nonsense. The question is irrelevant to the point I argued - successfully - that neo-con policy does not necessarily revolve around defence of human rights. You suggested america did not know about Saddam's human rights violations when they backed him. A vain hope, as it turned out.

Now. You're suggesting a moral basis for supporting Saddam, despite his human rights violations, on the basis that one had no choice. I pointed out that that appears to be a false dichotomy, unless you can prove those were the only two alternatives. You ignored that point and tried to make a comparison between the Iran/iraq war and world war two.

The irrelevance of the comparison lies in the fact that intervention in WW2 was generally accepted to be a war of national survival. The onus is therefore on you to prove exactly why do you think that america had to back either iran or Iraq?

"That neo-con policy does not necessarily revolve around defence of human rights."=Agreed; I think the way bush deals with Darfur proves that anyways. But with saddam....I was just checking.

Now as for my comparison, i still think your backing out because you know you're trapped. "I pointed out that that appears to be a false dichotomy" You proved nothing of the sort, therefore, and i already showed how the two situations are essentially the same. You just said that you "don't see the relevence" and left it at that.

BTW, America had to back either Iraq or iran because of national interests. Reagan ended up electing for Saddam and his oil, and lookie lookie-the economyboomed throughout the 80's. Obviously there was more to it then Saddams oil, but it was a factor-a big one.

[Lena]

You don't know your history woman. it was MacArthur who made virtually every importent strategical move in . and in the Korean War. it was MacArthur who LED the marines and the navy in battles like the Midway, Coral sea, Okinawa, etc. it was MacArthur who fulfilled his promise by returning to the Philippines and taking it away from Japan. And it was MacArthur who made that brilliant move in the Korean War to attack the communists just outside of China. But then truman stepped in and nullified that spectacular accomplishment. We could have taken out china, but Truman didn't have the spine to fight them. how sad! Macarthur was the hero of the war in the ., and he was the hero of the Korean war. You just don't like the fact that he embraced war and bloodshed. You probably don't think very highly of Marque De Lafoyette and William Sherman either?[/color]


Your right , am no history expert .Just have some books and what I found onthe www . You beat me with THE WORLD ACCORDING TO FOX NEWS AND RUSH ................. . Don't think Mac Arthur had anything to do with all those big navy victorys and marine victorys . As a one time army brat and having lived in a army town 14 years now know all thsoe services are pretty teritiorial and there is no way in hell that any admiral wud let a general how to run his nay .What wud a army guy know about navy warfare or what wud a admiral know about land war anyway ..............?

Read how Mac Arthur was able to beat North Korea but went to far and the Chinesse ran walked all over him .Almost drove America out of Korea too .Ironic since less then 10 eyars before the Japanesse had run Mac Arthur out of the Phillipines ......................talk about a bad track record! He wanted a big war with China saying it was the only way to win but this other general Ridgeway started winning battels ( read Mac Arthur was actually furious witht he since it undercut his lying and Ridgeway got attention that wud naturally offend the old egomaniac) then forgetting the chain of command MacArthur shot his mouth off about how bad Tuman was and wham bam Truman bitch slapped him sending Doug into a loooong overdue retirement. No doupt saving millions of lives that wud have been lost ina world war three with China .We ended up allies with China against Russia inthe late 60's too !


The viet cong DID NOT kick our a$$. We killed millions of them, while they only killed 58,000 of our troops-and thats 58,000 troops for the entire war. Going into 1969, the total was much lower. the we DESTROYED them at the Tet offensive, but according to the media, the Viet Cong "shouldn't have been able to attack in the first place." they shoved that down the the American peoples throats, we bought into it, and a victory became a loss. Dispicable[/color]!


The viet cong may have list the TET fight but it didn't matter . Here the American people had been told the war was won in al but name and all of a sudden out of nowhere the 'defeated' enemy pops up out & over -runs the country . Saw how they even got in the US embassy which always had something like 1,000 soldiers around it ! Think like all the lies we've heard about iraq everyone lost faith in our leaders/liars and wanted out .................

As someone who comes from hell and has seen all kinds of fighting including a gang war will stick with what I said about first you fight with your brain then what the situation needs....................and like i said: fire is ALWAYS needed. Fire POWER, that is

I'll make a deal with you , you go out and live someplace where people are violent and there's gang wars then come back and tell me how you don't fight by thinking first ....................................A little thinking wud have saved alot of people back in Viet Nam and now in iraq.

The war mongering of rush , fox news, and Bill O' is just ignorant babbling meant to entertain ...........don't fall for it and be a fool. So is the defeatist, pathetic, spineless cowardice of Olbermann, Press, Scarbrough, Schwartz, and the rest of the liberal comrades.

Sorry you need people to decide things for you . I don't need any right wing entertainer or anyone else telling me how to think ..................

[mogadishu]

Now as for my comparison, i still think your backing out because you know you're trapped. "I pointed out that that appears to be a false dichotomy"

I didn't say I *proved* it - I pointed out that that'sm how it appears.

You proved nothing of the sort, therefore, and i already showed how the two situations are essentially the same.

As I said - the onus is on you to *show* they are the same - not just reiterate your own unthinking assumption as god given fact and expect other people to agree. It's up to you to DEMONSTRATE that, for example, backing either iran or iraq was better for america than... just... not getting involved in the war at all.

Just bleating out that "we had to back the lesser of two evils" just makes you sound like a fourth grader repeating the half baked assumptions of uninformed parents.

W, America had to back either Iraq or iran because of national interests. Reagan ended up electing for Saddam and his oil, and lookie lookie-the economyboomed throughout the 80's. Obviously there was more to it then Saddams oil, but it was a factor-a big one.

That's not a strong enough argument to demonstrate that he had no other choice BAG.

[Lena]

Firstly, Undersecretary of the Navy is an appointed civilian position, not a uniformed military position.



So ? The point is Roosevelt went in but the president choose him to do another job . And he was a hands-on undersecretary , he coild have probably stayed in Wahington but was on ships hunted by German submarines ( bet they wud have loved to have killed someone of his rank ) with the marines on the ground in Europe , and even on patrol with soldiers in Haiti & the Dominican Depublic .Thats a long way from a certain drunkern rich boy who talked tough but hada nasty habit of not showing up at drills,and having dada get him out early .


The idea of wolfowitz, perle or any neocon doing any of thosde things is laughbale and I do mean laughable ................

Secondly, if a President who has not fought in a war is morally or otherwise disqualified from sending American troops to war notwithstanding that under the Constitution the President is Commander In Chief of the military, then Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are disqualified from the Presidency and so is Rudy Giuliani. Only John McCain is qualified to be President. And Bill Clinton was disqualified from attacking Serbia illegally.[/quote]


I understand what your saying . Too bad we don't have a draft so everyone has to serve and learn as well as risk there life .

Then again will say that don't think either Obama or Hillary are the romantic tough talkers /war -lovers like little georgey and the jonathan pollards are . Who again see fighting and dying as someone else's job ........... Also whether you agree with them or not they are loyal Americans unlike the neocons who all happily will fight to the last American for israel ..................... I guess without a draft we'll have to settle for maturity and loyalty to America.