Comments on: Where’s Jenna? Where’s Barbara?

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:13:33 +0000

I’m not particularly fond of the “his kids should serve” thing, but dammit, you pro-war people deserve it for all the World War II comparisons you make. You argued that Hussein was like Hitler, that the Iraq invasion was as important as overthrowing the Nazis, but you aren’t willing to go to the recruiting centers in droves like they did during WWII. Its not like the army doesn’t need more recruits, they do.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:55:52 +0000

Oh man, I’m not even gonna go there with you, Q

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:53:04 +0000

Ignorance and fear are the biggest and most effective weapons of the terrorist’ arsenal.

And the element of surprise.

By: Muzza

Muzza — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:46:07 +0000

The issue here isn’t what Jenna and Barbara should or shouldn’t be doing; it’s what would their old man do if his daughters were over there. My guess is that if Jenna’s and Barbara’s arses were magically transported to within 500 miles of Bagdad the troops would be home by Labor Day. If you believe in a war of choice then you should be willing to accept the death of your own kids. I don’t believe for one second that Bush would have gone to war if he expected to see one his kids come home in box. This administration can live with the death of 2,600 volunteers; they’d call the whole thing off if it meant the life of one of their own. The all-volunteer army has made it too easy to commit troops. There’s no justification for asking others to suffer in ways you never would.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:38:58 +0000

Here, here.
This whole line about we have to fight them there so they don’t come here is crap. if that were the case, we should be working alot harder to make our nation as safe as we can, not somebody else’s.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:37:50 +0000

jadegold

Bizarre.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:34:20 +0000

Steve, we can start with inspecting containers and air cargo. We can also unite with the rest of the world in securing the world’s nuclear inventory from the old Soviet Union- the Clinton administration took lots of nuclear material out of the hands of rogue entities- an effort that was stopped when the current resident took office.

We can stop antagonizing other nations- it is important to remember that Ahmenijad was only elected after the US inflamed fears with his “axis of evil” proclamation. Iran was well on its way to rejoining the world community when that happened.

We can also catch and bring to justice terrorists, such as Osama bin Laden, on the loose for 5 years now after financing the largest attack on American soil.

There is a terrorist threat, as there has been throughout our history. But it is nothing that we should have to give up our Constitutional Rights in order to fight.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:33:38 +0000

Steve
I beleive at this point it is more of a police situation. Military might has historically been ineffective in battle ideology (unless you count the stalemate of the Cold War) because it is hard to aim at or bomb a concept.
In the long run (and here I fully expect to be excoriated for being a touchy-feely liberal) ideology can only truly be battled with education and mutual understanding. Ignorance and fear are the biggest and most effective weapons of the terrorist’ arsenal. Xenophobia a close second.
It makes me think of the difference between how we treated the Indians when we got here and how the French did. We killed them. The French married them. Hard to make war on your brother-in-law.

By: Steve Wasser

Steve Wasser — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:23:59 +0000

My own question would be does anybody here believe Islamic based terrorism to be an actual threat against America, or will they just go away, or are we just willing to accept periodic attacks every few years and just deal with it? I’m not being sarcastic or snide, I’m really interested in what level people believe the threat, or non-threat Islamic terrorism poses.

The general consensus seems to be there is a threat, but nothing that warrants a war in Iraq (I agree), but my follow up would be, what should we be doing about it? Should we project our power, or just protect our borders. Is this a military situation, or police situation?

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:12:27 +0000

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: ‘fa-”shi-z&m also ‘fa-”si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Somehow Islamic extremeism just doesn’t fit the definition very well. Lately, it fits something else much better.
Indeed.

By: frameone

frameone — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:01:50 +0000

Bravo, Bill.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:48:29 +0000

“So please, feel free to squelch any real debate with emotionally laden appeals to that uniquely American trait of egotis gigantis ignoramus, where afflicted Americans toss their brains in the shredder for a chance to puff up their chests and prove to the world just how awesome they are.”

That’s why I question these people on why they don’t sign up- it deflates their balloon real quick. Because when it comes down to it, they don’t believe in their so-called war on Islamofascists or they’re chicken. I’ll allow them to pick their poison.

Men ran to the recruiters during wwii, lied about their age, and ,if they weren’t accepted, were ashamed that they couldn’t fight Hitler or Hirohito.

Now? Not so much.

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:39:38 +0000

Islamo-fascism…doesn’t exist. Sorry, but if you understand what fascism is AT ALL, you would then realize that it doesn’t apply to Mid Eastern terrorists. But when you are a death profiteer with a war to spin, why not dip your chocolate (Islam, which may as well be a synonym for terrorism for the feeble minded) in your peanut butter (fascism, which is just a notch below “Nazi” in the lexicon of easily recognized but rarely understood terms from WW II)? The math is simple:

WW II = “Good” war, U.S. saved the world…on its own…with a pair of jet fueled nuclear fists…or at least that’s how many Americans care to remember it.

Nazi = Ultimate bad, just ask any video game designer. For fun, try this experiment, paint a swastika on an orange and leave in on the sidewalk. Watch as within seconds people from miles around come running to step on it.

Fascist = Kinda like Nazi-lite. Whereas Nazis=terrorists makes people immediately have visions of SS troops sieg heiling alongside their swarthy bearded stereotyped Arab counterparts, fascism lacks that immediate punch, plus it lacks an obvious symbol to use for the fruit test. Still, any red blooded American knows that fascists, like Mexicans and Ay-rabs, needs to be punched first and waterboarded later.

But why invoke one when you can routinely invoke all of them? Just because any comparison between a multinational conflict between warring nation states and the current overblown military enterprise in the Middle East is both tactically and historically inappropriate shouldn’t stop the faithful. So please, feel free to squelch any real debate with emotionally laden appeals to that uniquely American trait of egotis gigantis ignoramus, where afflicted Americans toss their brains in the shredder for a chance to puff up their chests and prove to the world just how awesome they are. You know, just like in WW II. Except we were awesome then, mostly (sorry Japanese Americans), and everyone got on board, and not the water kind. Even the rich (just ask Prescott Bush).

Those still in possession of a bit of grey matter tend to recognize the whole “war on terror” charade for what it is, a golden opportunity for those hungry for profit and power to leverage American hubris against that most human failing, fear of the “other.”

The next time you’re pulled aside and questioned at the airport for wearing the “wrong” shirt, are forced to empty your pockets before being allowed to ride the subway, pay double for your prescription while Paris Hilton gets another tax cut, or read about calls to jail “traitorous” dissidents in the press, consider again the true meaning of fascism.

By: JadeGold

JadeGold — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:21:59 +0000

Rhineland seizure?

Dugger’s history is extremely fractured.

Germany didn’t seize the Rhineland; in fact, when German troops arrived in the Rhineland, many were riding bicycles and encountered little opposition as most in the Rhineland (Germans)considered it an act of liberation.

By: frameone

frameone — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:18:23 +0000

Indeed, I forgot about the Rhineland, but be that as it may, it doesn’t exactly make the current analogy to pre-WWII any more apt. The United States wasn’t in any position to attack Germany at that time on any level be it politically or militarily.

At the same time, it doesn’t exactly address the question of Imperial Japan. When should we have pre-emptively attacked Japan? And what’s the contemporary correlary for that?

The bottom line is that the WWII analogy is little more than a Republican attempt to politicize this war while utterly failing to act on its own rhetoric. Not to mention the fact that if we had invaded Germany in 1936 and handled it as badly as we’ve handled Iraq, well, who knows what would have happened.

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:00:28 +0000

I’m sorry NG, but you are being far too equanimous in the face of these bullshit artists. There is simply no historical similarity between the current situation in which we find ourselves and 1936 Germany.

Germany and Japan were spending between 15%-25% of their GNP on militarization throughout the 1930-1940s, had clear regional ambitions fully expressed in their public pronouncements, were actively invading their neighbors and were relatively advanced technological economies. Those were the hallmarks of the age of fascism. NONE of those factors exist today.

More importantly, the people who attacked us REMAIN FREE and the president has expressed publicly that he doesn’t even spend any time thinking about it.

Most critically, do we really want to be the only major industrialized country boots down in the Middle East while the rest of the industrialized nations continue to cash in their peace dividends? What the fuck is the matter with you people?

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:24:15 +0000

“Many historians believe” doesn’t prove you right, Dugger. Neither, of course, does it prove Frame wrong, but his scenario is, on balance, the more likely one.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:14:31 +0000

Actually, many historians believe if any of the major powers had intervened during the Rhineland seizure, 1936, Hitler would have been stopped (the German Army was dubious of Hitller and looking for a pretext to do something). No draft, no mobilization required.

By: frameone

frameone — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:48:08 +0000

And speaking of dodging the issue, at what point in the mid to late 1930s could the US have “preventively” attacked Germany, Italy and/or Japan without a massive, national mobilization, including a draft?

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:47:25 +0000

Jay, nobody appointed him, but it is a recognized fact. There are many, many soldiers who are being deployed on their third rotation. The Marines are forcing callups of 60 year old men for combat operations. The number of AWOLs has begun to increase quickly. We hollowed out the military in Vietnam and we are hollowing it out again.

The only options are to find more recruits or to end the mission. If you believe in the mission, you better be the recruits or find someone to act on your behalf.