Sunday, August 13, 2006
Sunday Talking Head Shows
Russ Feingold on This Week said that our finishing the Gulf War by invading Iraq was a mistake because al Qaeda attacked us, not Saddam Hussein. True, but in WWII Japan attacked us and yet we gave priority to attacking, invading and conquering Nazi Germany. We beat the Germans before the Japanese. Clear thinking Democrats 60 years ago saw that, despite a lack of formal alignment, Nazi Germany (Fascist Italy) and Imperial Japan comprised the enemy and we had to defeat them all decisively by killing millions of them. There was no mention (I can find) of the popular modern silliness, that killing Nazis would only create more Nazis, and of course it didn't. Killing Nazis ended Nazism (at least in Germany); the sympathetic followers of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem apparently didn't get the memo.
Kristol and Krauthammer say Israel lost this round and Olmert is finished. I agree. Will Netanyahu do better? I don't know, but it would be difficult to do worse. I still endorse the 'mulligan' idea: Cease fire, reload, then, under new management, take a second shot at Hezbollah.
Is it possible to get a conservative woman on the Fox Sunday panel? Elizabeth Shogren from NPR is pretty but weak in her analysis. Bring back Moira; she at least was occasionally right.
Chris Matthews' little watched short show is at least asking the right questions but neither he nor his panel (3-1 lefty) appear to have any clear insight or answers. What matter will it make that Lamont took the primary if independent Joe Lieberman wins the November election? Lamont didn't embarrass himself completely on Fox, but it was tough to get a read on him as he was ducking the questions so furiously. Chrystia Freeland from the Financial Times, wicked widow's peak, is a lot like the paper she represents--pink, smart and erudite but a little stodgy and boring.
Kristol and Krauthammer say Israel lost this round and Olmert is finished. I agree. Will Netanyahu do better? I don't know, but it would be difficult to do worse. I still endorse the 'mulligan' idea: Cease fire, reload, then, under new management, take a second shot at Hezbollah.
Is it possible to get a conservative woman on the Fox Sunday panel? Elizabeth Shogren from NPR is pretty but weak in her analysis. Bring back Moira; she at least was occasionally right.
Chris Matthews' little watched short show is at least asking the right questions but neither he nor his panel (3-1 lefty) appear to have any clear insight or answers. What matter will it make that Lamont took the primary if independent Joe Lieberman wins the November election? Lamont didn't embarrass himself completely on Fox, but it was tough to get a read on him as he was ducking the questions so furiously. Chrystia Freeland from the Financial Times, wicked widow's peak, is a lot like the paper she represents--pink, smart and erudite but a little stodgy and boring.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 9:46 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Roger,
I concede that notwithsatnding Peter Brush's best efforts, your Latin skills have stood the test of time better than my own. But as one old Latinist to another, pleae remember you Virgil, Book VI beginning at l 126:
"Facilis descensus Averni:
Noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis;
Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auras,
Hoc opus, hic labor est."
And so it is w/ our national experience in Iraq. I think you would do both of us a favor if you cease comparing the war gainst Hilter's Getrmnay to the war against Saddam's Iraq. I for one, would no longer be annoyed by the comparison and you would not need my constant reminders regarding the inaptitude of the comparison. Whereas one cannot argue that the Invasion of Iraq was not a military success, one also may not credibly argue that the invasion was necessary in the global war against terrorism or even that it was desirable in the defense of our national interests.
The war against Hilter was both.
Be of good chher,
T
I concede that notwithsatnding Peter Brush's best efforts, your Latin skills have stood the test of time better than my own. But as one old Latinist to another, pleae remember you Virgil, Book VI beginning at l 126:
"Facilis descensus Averni:
Noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis;
Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auras,
Hoc opus, hic labor est."
And so it is w/ our national experience in Iraq. I think you would do both of us a favor if you cease comparing the war gainst Hilter's Getrmnay to the war against Saddam's Iraq. I for one, would no longer be annoyed by the comparison and you would not need my constant reminders regarding the inaptitude of the comparison. Whereas one cannot argue that the Invasion of Iraq was not a military success, one also may not credibly argue that the invasion was necessary in the global war against terrorism or even that it was desirable in the defense of our national interests.
The war against Hilter was both.
Be of good chher,
T
# posted by 
: 1:05 PM
: 1:05 PM
Geeze Roger, what a terrible anology. First, didn't Germany declare war on us? second, didn't we devote a lot of our resourses to the european theatre because our allies needed us to? Third, and most importantly, the Battle of Midway, the decisive battle in the war in the Pacific, took place in early June, 1942, two years before we helped invade Normandy. At that point we had one carrier left in the Pacific, the Enterprise, which forced us to maintain the satus quo against the Japanese until our superior production could turn the tide. Its not as if the US intentionally decided to defeat Germany as part of its fight against Japan.
Also, considering no Americans fought in The Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk, the decisive battles in Europe, to say "we" beat the Germans before we beat the japanese is pretty misleading.
This is a really bad analogy.
Also, considering no Americans fought in The Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk, the decisive battles in Europe, to say "we" beat the Germans before we beat the japanese is pretty misleading.
This is a really bad analogy.
# posted by : 8:18 PM
: 8:18 PM
"There was no mention (I can find) of the popular modern silliness, that killing Nazis would only create more Nazis, and of course it didn't."
This is annother simplistic annalogy. After 9/11, it now seems pretty clear that the correct strategy was to fight and defeat the actual terrorists, but at the same time to do our best to avoid actions that would alienate the moderates and young arabs who would otherwise find modernity appealing. Bush, of course, by invading Iraq in an incompetent and brutal way, with insufficient numbers of troops,did exactly the opposite.
As a result, the neo-cons have actually emboldened the enemy, made the West look weak, lost us potential support among the moderate Muslims, and now embroiled us in the middle of a civil war. This is not 1941.
This is annother simplistic annalogy. After 9/11, it now seems pretty clear that the correct strategy was to fight and defeat the actual terrorists, but at the same time to do our best to avoid actions that would alienate the moderates and young arabs who would otherwise find modernity appealing. Bush, of course, by invading Iraq in an incompetent and brutal way, with insufficient numbers of troops,did exactly the opposite.
As a result, the neo-cons have actually emboldened the enemy, made the West look weak, lost us potential support among the moderate Muslims, and now embroiled us in the middle of a civil war. This is not 1941.
# posted by : 8:30 PM
: 8:30 PM
Tony, sorry, it's the Jew hating connection. No present comparison to historical events will be perfect but some are more apt than others. I see a connection between Islamic fascists and German fascists because one exists. I also believe taking out Saddam was absolutely necessary to our national security needs (no less so than destroying the Nazis in fact). Saddam was a destabalizing influence, not a counterweight to Iran. And even if Iraq decides to split up like Yugoslavia did, we're still better off than had Saddam passed the dictatorship to his evil sons. Iran is next on the list, I assure you.
Anon. I am well aware that 80% of the European theater was fought in Russia and had we not entered that war (after Germany unwisely declared war on us) it would still have ended in German defeat in 1946. 'We' means the allies.
I believe we did decide to defeat Germany first--if it was partly because we were waiting for more carriers, so be it. That certainly wasn't the only reason. There were other carriers in the Pacific besides the Enterprise after the Yorktown was sunk in June, 1942. What's wrong with you? The Hornet was right there at Midway and the Princeton and Wasp were south of there.
Anon 2. I don't think you know anything about what motivates usually middle class Muslims to become terrorists, so quit pretending you do. If you think we look weak now, wait until we cut and run (Democrat plan). We're not embroiled in a civil war (although we're there) and it's not like 1941, it's more like 1938. The real slaughter is coming.
Thanks all for your well informed comments.
Turpibus exitium.
Anon. I am well aware that 80% of the European theater was fought in Russia and had we not entered that war (after Germany unwisely declared war on us) it would still have ended in German defeat in 1946. 'We' means the allies.
I believe we did decide to defeat Germany first--if it was partly because we were waiting for more carriers, so be it. That certainly wasn't the only reason. There were other carriers in the Pacific besides the Enterprise after the Yorktown was sunk in June, 1942. What's wrong with you? The Hornet was right there at Midway and the Princeton and Wasp were south of there.
Anon 2. I don't think you know anything about what motivates usually middle class Muslims to become terrorists, so quit pretending you do. If you think we look weak now, wait until we cut and run (Democrat plan). We're not embroiled in a civil war (although we're there) and it's not like 1941, it's more like 1938. The real slaughter is coming.
Thanks all for your well informed comments.
Turpibus exitium.
I guess in my respect for the Big E, I sometimes get carried away. But a quick check shows that The Princeton was not commissioned until August,1943, eventually being lost at the battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944.
After Midway, the great Hornet was out of commission from June to mid August,1942. The Wasp, a much smaller and deficient carrier, didn't come to the Pacific until July,1942 and was lost in September,1942.
So in June and July,1942 the Enterprise was the only carrier fighting in the Pacific against the entire Japanese navy, until she was joined by Wasp and Saratoga at Guadalcanal. To be fair, damage to the Enterprise and Saratoga reduced the carrier force to the Hornet in September and October,1942, when the Enterprise got back in action. The Hornet was sunk at the The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands on October 1942 . Though damaged the Enterprise was the only carrier to fight at the Battle of Guadalcanal in November,1942. The Big E survived the war and received earning 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II, "and was clearly the most important and most centrally-involved of all of them as well. Some have even labelled her the most glorious and honored ship in all of United States Naval history, rivalled only perhaps by the 18th-century frigate USS Constitution." (Wikipedia).
In what was the worst decision made by our government prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Enterprise was destroyed and sold for scrap in 1960. The ship's bell is now at the Naval Academy and is only rung after victories over Army. Enterprise's masthead is on display in a small park in River Vale, New Jersey, a wonderful pace to visit if you're in the area.
After Midway, the great Hornet was out of commission from June to mid August,1942. The Wasp, a much smaller and deficient carrier, didn't come to the Pacific until July,1942 and was lost in September,1942.
So in June and July,1942 the Enterprise was the only carrier fighting in the Pacific against the entire Japanese navy, until she was joined by Wasp and Saratoga at Guadalcanal. To be fair, damage to the Enterprise and Saratoga reduced the carrier force to the Hornet in September and October,1942, when the Enterprise got back in action. The Hornet was sunk at the The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands on October 1942 . Though damaged the Enterprise was the only carrier to fight at the Battle of Guadalcanal in November,1942. The Big E survived the war and received earning 20 battle stars, the most for any U.S. warship in World War II, "and was clearly the most important and most centrally-involved of all of them as well. Some have even labelled her the most glorious and honored ship in all of United States Naval history, rivalled only perhaps by the 18th-century frigate USS Constitution." (Wikipedia).
In what was the worst decision made by our government prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Enterprise was destroyed and sold for scrap in 1960. The ship's bell is now at the Naval Academy and is only rung after victories over Army. Enterprise's masthead is on display in a small park in River Vale, New Jersey, a wonderful pace to visit if you're in the area.
# posted by : 8:42 AM
: 8:42 AM
Roger, I try to stay away from any personal attacks but this is an absolutely mind boggling hatched job you did with this posting. The lack of logic and historical inaccuracies were driving me crazy but, thank goodness, tony (as usual) and ano calmed me down.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 3:28 PM
: 3:28 PM << Home
