Now The Libs Are Decrying the "Toy Gap"

[Larry Gude]

Tonio,

I think that's a good way to look at it, haves and nots.

C's (I love shorthand!) can be characterized as knowing and understanding the "system", government, markets et al and therefore, if not the motivation then at least the ability to access opportunity more readily. They are "in" and thereby "haves" even if they are not all millionaires.

L's are ALL about what they don't have. Every single issue is characterized by a real or even a simply perceived lack of access, knowledge, respect, rights or even simple acknowledgment. "I am thus" all the while the "haves" are steadily gathering nuts for winter and the "nots" are falling further behind.

So, can we further simplify this into terms of one wanting to conserve what one has gathered while the other, now further and further behind sees taking or perhaps
"liberating" some of what is already gathered as desirable and perhaps the only way to catch up?

Furthermore, if one group is ostensibly about advancing the culture as a whole, emphasizing wrongs and seeking remedy, celebrating diversity, and keeping score then isn't it possible to say that perhaps this group is actually due something for the role they play? Especially when the other group does nothing, in essence, but focus on personal gain?

PS: What has Cynthia McKinney ever said that could be compared to Coulters remarks?

 

[vraiblonde]

I found out she was the one who called for a holy war to convert Arab countries to Christianity, and declared her regret that McVeigh hadn't chosen to blow up the NY Times instead.

Like Frank said, did you actually read the columns where she said those things or just listen to Katie Couric's reporting of it?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
What has Cynthia McKinney ever said that could be compared to Coulters remarks?

I was thinking of McKinney's claim that Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen.

I have read a few of Coulter's columns. She starts off in a reasonable tone, pointing out lapses in the media's objectivity. But she gradually gets more outlandish. Coulter seems to see herself as a holy crusader against liberalism, and as I said before, American politics is ill-served by a "good versus evil" attitude.

She was joking when she talked about the NY Times blowing up? That was supposed to be funny? She should tell that "joke" to someone who lost a family member in the Murrah Building explosion, or to the many, many people who lost loved ones at the WTC or the Pentagon.

I really didn't mean to single her out. If you ever seen the City Paper or the Village Voice, you'll find a few writers who see themselves as holy crusaders against conservatism.

 

[vraiblonde]

She should tell that "joke" to someone who lost a family member in the Murrah Building explosion, or to the many, many people who lost loved ones at the WTC or the Pentagon.

I'll bet they wish the terrorists had gone after the NYT building, too. And Ann Coulter told that "joke" to the whole world, including Murrah, WTC and Pentagon people.

Nobody has a sense of humor anymore - everyone wants to run around screaming, "THAT'S not funny!"

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Tonio


I was thinking of McKinney's claim that Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen.

I have read a few of Coulter's columns. She starts off in a reasonable tone, pointing out lapses in the media's objectivity. But she gradually gets more outlandish.

Exactly. It's the hyperbole that is supposed to be funny. Migtig here has actually met her. Cool lady. I can only dream of meeting her. Actually I DO dream of meeting her.

And I often do the same thing - to point out how ridiculous a particular point is. I'll describe an issue as it is portrayed by someone I disagree with, and try to create the opposite, equally ridiculous view. I have no problem with this.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

Like Frank said, did you actually read the columns where she said those things or just listen to Katie Couric's reporting of it?

I have. You apparently haven't.

Ann's dopey column about "converting them to Christianity" can be read for yourself at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010914.shtml .

The infamous phrase appears in the last paragraph. It is clearly not meant as a joke, as you can see by reading the entire column. In full the paragraph reads:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

The way I see it, we've progressed quite a bit from the days of WWII, when carpet bombing seemed like a good idea. We've spent decades and billions of dollars to create weapons that, to use Ann's phrasing, punctiliously target only the bad guys. It's more expensive ($500k for a cruise missile, versus something like $20k for a Big Ass Bomb[tm]), but we realize now that it's not cool to kill civilians. So Ann's silly analogy to WWII is, like much of her writing, quite vacuous.

 

[Frank]

Like I said - hyperbole to make a point. (And published only a few days after the attack). And I found nothing objectionable about it, just as I found nothing objectionable about Bill Maher's remarks about lobbing cruise missiles and flying airplanes. When you're in a war, you kick your enemy's ass all around town, and let the chips fall where they may. Where do people get the idea that when you are at war with a country - such as Germany, in the example she gave - that it is only the leaders whom you should fight? Where did this crazy idea come from? They do not *flinch* from killing innocent civilians, and have continued to celebrate it, a year later. Were we at war with Germany, or just the men at the top? Why didn't we just hand out flowers on the battlefield?

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Frank
Like I said - hyperbole to make a point.

I disagree. The "convert them all" column was published on 14 September. Take a look at the column prior to that one ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010906.shtml ), entitled "Stop Persecuting Andrea Yates." In it, Ms. Coulter attempts a Swiftian satire in which she laudes Andrea Yates for her "postnatal abortion" as a true paragon of feminist ideals. That's "hyperbole to make a point," or vicious satire.

The tone is completely different in the post-September-11 column; the exaggerated hyperbole is missing throughout the rest of the column.

just as I found nothing objectionable about Bill Maher's remarks about lobbing cruise missiles and flying airplanes

Maher's statement is objectionable (to me) because it's wrong. He stated the cowards were those who lobbed cruise missiles from relative offshore safety. I see nothing cowardly in a country that puts a great deal of resources into destroying the leaders, and leaving the generally apathetic civilian population alone. This is particularly correct in the case of Afghanistan, where the Bad Guys weren't even local bad guys--the Taliban came into Afghanistan from elsewhere and used it as a base of operations. How is it fair to go indiscriminately killng civilians in that situation?

When you're in a war, you kick your enemy's ass all around town, and let the chips fall where they may.

No, you don't. Not anymore. We've risen above that. That's what separates us (Western Civilization) from those who fly airplanes into buildings and kill completely innocent people, whose only crime is practicing capitalism.

Where do people get the idea that when you are at war with a country - such as Germany, in the example she gave - that it is only the leaders whom you should fight? Where did this crazy idea come from?

Oh, I don't know--maybe ideals of human decency and civilized behaviour? In Germany, quite a large portion of the average citizenry, Otto Sixpack if you will, had no interest in conquering the world or following Hitler. In Vietnam, Phong Sixpack would have been just as happy toiling in his rice paddy, and not being made to get involved with fighting. In Iraq, Abdul Sixpack has no interest in Saddam Hussein or fighting against Americans. And, of course, in this country, Joe Sixpack in the WTC had no interest in dying that day. Why should the civilians suffer?

They do not *flinch* from killing innocent civilians, and have continued to celebrate it, a year later.

I see, so because they act like savages, so should we? No, sorry, we've risen above that. A world in which we obliterated any country that did us wrong wouldn't be much fun to live in.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Doc

Oh, I don't know--maybe ideals of human decency and civilized behaviour? In Germany, quite a large portion of the average citizenry, Otto Sixpack if you will, had no interest in conquering the world or following Hitler. In Vietnam, Phong Sixpack would have been just as happy toiling in his rice paddy, and not being made to get involved with fighting. In Iraq, Abdul Sixpack has no interest in Saddam Hussein or fighting against Americans. And, of course, in this country, Joe Sixpack in the WTC had no interest in dying that day. Why should the civilians suffer?

I've heard this before - since childhood, actually - but it simply never jibed with a single shred of documentation and history I could ever find. That's why I wondered why on the battlefield, we didn't just poke flowers in their gun barrels. There were in each of those cases, hundreds of thousands to millions of men who did atrocious things on the battlefield - BUT - they'd much rather be at home toiling quietly. In Iraq, they celebrate the deaths of Americans via the just punishment of Allah - but - they don't really want to hurt us. No. Not believing it. Wars are not fought against the will of the people, in general. I did not fight in Vietnam, but most of my older male relatives did, and they were just as concerned about the civilians trying to kill them as the soldiers in the jungle. War is terrible, and we should not try to sanitize it and risk our lives to try to be polite over it.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Frank
I've heard this before - since childhood, actually - but it simply never jibed with a single shred of documentation and history I could ever find.

Not looking too hard are you? Remember Desert Storm? Remember how quickly the Iraqis threw down their guns and hoisted their tighty-whities in surrender? Did you ever read any of the interviews they had with them? A lot of them had no interest in fighting, wanted nothing to do with it, but were forced to. Same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were rounding up a lot of individuals and forcing them to fight for them, with the penalty being the death of their families, or even their entire block (or what passes for a city block in Afghanistan).

On a more personal note, I had distant relatives in Germany during WWII. One flew in the Luftwaffe. They weren't at all happy about it, as they said after the war.

That's why I wondered why on the battlefield, we didn't just poke flowers in their gun barrels.

No, no, you misunderstand. Kill the guy pointing a gun at you (don't stuff foliage in his gun). He may not want to be there, but he's sure going to try to shoot you. But the house where his family lives back in his hometown--why on earth should you go dropping bombs on it? Why should his wife and children pay with their lives?

Summary:
(A) Lobbing a cruise missile at enemy troops, regardless of their moral convictions, and blowing only them up = A Good Thing.

(B) Dropping a daisy cutter and wiping out not just some troops, but the civilians nearby = A Very Bad Thing.

Modern military strategy as practiced by the US focuses on (A). Option (B) is no longer considered a good thing to do. And, if you want to be technical about things, it's also strategically poor, but to explain all those reasons would take a lot more typing than I can spare today.

War is terrible, and we should not try to sanitize it and risk our lives to try to be polite over it.

The terribleness can--and should--be reduced as much as possible by technology. That's the US policy currently.

 

[vraiblonde]

Doc, I DID read Ann's column and the reason I wasn't outraged by it is because...I agree with her. "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" - I'm into it. (Well, maybe not the 'convert' part but it's certainly better than that wacked out religion they're following now - the religion of jihad)

Why kill the non-combatants? I guess the only reason is that these flakes have no qualms about loading a little child up with explosives and sending them into enemy territory to detonate - knowing full well that very few military men and women will have the heart to shoot a little child. And if they DID have the heart, the US media would rip them to shreds and they'd stand trial for war crimes.

Why do you think these people hide their weapons and troops in baby milk factories, schools and hospitals? Because they know that the US President will take a ton of domestic heat if he bombs it.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Doc, I DID read Ann's column and the reason I wasn't outraged by it is because...I agree with her. "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" - I'm into it. (Well, maybe not the 'convert' part but it's certainly better than that wacked out religion they're following now - the religion of jihad)

I'm not sure that Christianity is a better alternative to Islam. They're both pretty dumb religions, and the fundamentalist versions of either are equally terrifying. I don't object to the "invade their country and kill their leaders" part. I do object to the obliteration of civilians just to achieve a military goal.

Why kill the non-combatants? I guess the only reason is that these flakes have no qualms about loading a little child up with explosives and sending them into enemy territory to detonate

Ah, so because the terrorists are *******s who kill a few children by turning them into human bombs, the correct solution is--as Ms. Coulter would have it--carpetbombing and killing all the children, women, noncombatants, and bad guys??????

That's possibly the most vapid statement I've heard in a long while. That's precisely why we don't kill noncombatants. We target the flakes who load the kids up, and not the kids.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Doc
... That's possibly the most vapid statement I've heard in a long while. That's precisely why we don't kill noncombatants. We target the flakes who load the kids up, and not the kids.

Actually we have and do kill them! While engaged in combat during WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, our troops have had to kill off-spring being used as human bombs and combatants. Germany flooded the lines with children of the "Hitler Youth" as well as every kid they could make carry a gun, the last few days of the conflict. And we killed a good number of them. Korea and Viet Nam it became a staple of their arsenal.

If the other side throw them out there the only responsible choice our troops have is to put a bullet in them and protect "our" guys.

 

[Larry Gude]

Frank,

Cool lady. I can only dream of meeting her. Actually I DO dream of meeting her.

I never really ever thougt of Cynthia as your type.

Oh well, to each his own I always say!

 

[Larry Gude]

Tonio,

I guess what I'm trying to differentiate is that Coulter says rather specific things that are very plain spoken and can be taken, as Doc does, as rather vicious and indefensible.

Cynthia, on the other hand probably has some case to be made that Bush knew more than he'd like the world to know he knew before the incident. I don't think she was actually saying that he knew exactly what, when, where and why and then just stood around and watched.

FDR probably knew a great deal more about what was going on before Pearl Harbor than he would have been comfortable having the average Joe know.

If FDR knew that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were gonna be really bad for the world and the only way he could get the US motivated to help stop them then maybe inaction in regards to preventing Pearl Harbor is somewhat justified?

Following that logic, could Bush have had defensible reasons as well to maybe not be as vigilant as some might suggest?

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kyle
Actually we have and do kill them! While engaged in combat during WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, our troops have had to kill off-spring being used as human bombs and combatants.

Perhaps I should have been more specific (see one of my previous posts where I pointed this out): if it's coming at you with a gun or a bomb, it's NOT a noncombatant, regardless of its age, gender, etc.: Kill! Kill! Kill!

But just because some kids get loaded up with bombs and sent out doesn't mean that all kids need to get killed by carpet bombing.

Also, please note that WWII ended over 50 years ago, Korea nearly 50 years ago, and Vietnam nearly 30 years ago. Their applicability to today's warfare models--particularly in the tactical areas we're considering here--is highly dubious. Tactics and technology have made enormous advances since then, so modes of fighting now need not mirror modes of fighting then. (Hey, why not argue we should be using the exact same tactics we used in the Civil War? Or Revolutionary War?)

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
If FDR knew that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were gonna be really bad for the world and the only way he could get the US motivated to help stop them then maybe inaction in regards to preventing Pearl Harbor is somewhat justified?

I've always found that idea--the unsubstantiated claim that the Government knew what was coming and chose to sit back and take the damage as a way of "gracefully" entering the war--to be pretty absurd. That is:

Scenario 1: Japanese attack. We know they're coming but pretend we don't, do nothing, and get a bunch of our ships sunk. "Hey! Those Japs attacked us! Let's get the bastards!"

Scenario 2: Japanese attack. We know they're coming but pretend we don't. We do schedule an exercise, arrange flight ops so that planes are up, ensure guys are manning their guns, take a few boats out for a spin, etc., so the least amount of damage is done and we've got more to fight back with. "Hey! Those Japs attacked us! Good thing most of our boats were out of port on an exercise, and we managed to shoot a lot of them down. Let's REALLY get them!

If you've really got your heart set on pretending it's a sneak attack, wouldn't you at least choose Scenario 2?

Likewise, whatever you might think about Bush, do you honestly believe he--or rather the folks that make his decisions for him--would get a sniff of the Sep 11 plans, and then choose to ignore it as a way of starting a war? It's the intent that's important anyway. The fact that the terrorists were planning to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon was enough for him to drum up a war. You don't need to let the bad guys actually accomplish their mission! You stop them in the planning phase, and then say, "Egad! Evildoers planning evil! Let's get Osama!"

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Doc
...Tactics and technology have made enormous advances since then, so modes of fighting now need not mirror modes of fighting then. (Hey, why not argue we should be using the exact same tactics we used in the Civil War? Or Revolutionary War?)

I can agree somewhat with your point about delivery of wholesale slaughter against a civilian population. However when it interferes with the outcome of a mission, battle etc. they shouldn't become a concern over our troops or other friendly.

As for the idea of combat tactics of WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, being outdated... I think that’s a bit naive.
Troops are still trained in combat tactics dating back to those arenas and before. Just because something is 50 years "known" doesn't mean it wouldn't be used against us, or by us, again.

Personally I wouldn't put so much faith in technology. Particularly on the battlefield. It has a way of failing at the worst times.

 

[vraiblonde]

Doc, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I find Ann Coulter amusing but George Bush is clearly not taking any military advice from her. So she can say "carpet bomb the whole Middle East" all she wants but, to my knowledge, she doesn't have any say-so.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Doc, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I find Ann Coulter amusing

Originally I was objecting to the statement that what Ann Colter had written was meant to be a jest. I was pointing out that she truly seemed to be serious in that particular column. The "let's kill everyone we disagree with" topic mutated out of that.

I find her amusing too: she's a rather bad writer who does a terrible job of defending her viewpoints, and is apparantly "famous" only because she's moderately pretty. Intellectually, she strikes me as a bit of lightweight. (Go back and read the Andrea Yates column I referenced earlier. It's painfully awful, and reminiscent of the sort of thing you'd find a Middle School newspaper.)

I certainly hope Dubya isn't listening to her vacuous twaddle. But it is rather sad when she says, "Let's kill a bunch of folks and convert them to a different religion," and folks reading her actually think that's a good idea.