Now The Libs Are Decrying the "Toy Gap"

[Doc]

Originally posted by Kyle
As for the idea of combat tactics of WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, being outdated... I think that’s a bit naive.

Well, the basics certainly stay the same. But WWII, Korea, Viet Nam were fought without benefit of cruise missiles, night vision, SIPRNET connectivity, UAVs, etc. Those things change tactics A LOT.

In WWII, dropping atomic bombs to end the war was the right decision. (Say what? Doc just advocated indiscriminate killing?) The alternatives were much messier, and most likely would have lead to more deaths. If we'd had today's technology then, atomic weapons might very well not have been the answer. Maybe some well-placed cruise missiles would have done the trick.

Dresden would be an example of something that not only wouldn't be done now, but wasn't even necessary then.

My point: be very careful when you argue, "Well back in WWII we did such-and-such. It was good enough then, it's good enough now." Hey, we practiced slavery once too, and that seemed like a mighty fine idea at the time. We've grown up since then, and realize that it's wrong. (Well, most of us, at least.)

 

[vraiblonde]

Doc, I didn't read where she said she wanted to wipe out the whole population of Afghanistan. What I saw was that she wanted to kill their leaders. Obviously, if she killed everyone in the country, there'd be no one left to convert to Christianity, right?

Have you ever seen Ann Coulter on TV? She has a very abrasive, sarcastic style that sometimes plays well and other times just seems hostile. She writes the same way. So someone who wasn't familiar with her "live" definitely wouldn't get her writing. I don't think she's a bad writer at all - I think she's bitingly funny (in an abrasive, sarcastic and hostile way).

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Doc, I didn't read where she said she wanted to wipe out the whole population of Afghanistan.

Once again, to quote the last words in her column, "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." Sounds to me like she's advocating carpet-bombing Afghanistan. That is, let's get the leaders, but let's be none too careful in schwacking them.

Have you ever seen Ann Coulter on TV? She has a very abrasive, sarcastic style that sometimes plays well and other times just seems hostile.

Yes, and she leaves me unimpressed. She seems rarely able to come up with a novel idea on the spot; she merely continues to parrot the same shopworn dictums. It's as though someone just poured a bunch of stock opinions into her, pulled the string in her back, and let her rattle on. I interpret her abrasive style as just that--style only, no substance.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's as though someone just poured a bunch of stock opinions into her, pulled the string in her back, and let her rattle on.

I think they ALL do that. It's like they glom onto a certain phrase that they think has a ring to it ("our soldiers are in harm's way" "weapons of mass destruction" etc) and they use it until it becomes a cliche. I still like Ann, though - her sneering sarcasm makes me laugh, especially when it's directed at someone I don't like.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Frank,



I never really ever thougt of Cynthia as your type.

Oh well, to each his own I always say!

Cynthia who? The only person I've been talking about is Ann.

 

[Larry Gude]

Doc, you're reading between the lines..

Your comment:

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:

I did not claim FDR, nor W for that matter, "knew" what was coming.

I wrote:

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.

He did. He was already sending help to the Russians and Great Britain. War planners had already surmised that the most likely Japanese move would be an attack on Pearl.

and followed with:

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?

At this point, late 1941, Great Britain was at the threshold of death as a nation, Nanking had already happened, most of the Pacific was under siege, Hitler was in Paris, at the outskirts of Moscow and anectodal evidence was coming to surface that the Germans were starting to dispose of non-combatants.

I don't think you read for meaning what I wrote or do you just think FDR an "absurd" idiot?