Daily Media Stupidity

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The point, Chris-is not that-it's having a finite period of time to prevent something bad from happening. From what I gather, many people here would rather see the Sears tower blow up and kill a few thousand people rather than accept the fact that it can be prevented by using some fairly forceful measures.

 

I'm frankly pretty disgusted that there are so many here, and elsewhere who are firmly convinced it is better to allow their own family, friends and neighbors die in the impression that whatever else happens, we have to show the world how nice we all are. that, after all is what is truly important.

 

Me, I'll be charging the cattle prod if you need me for anything.

344501[/snapback]

 

It's that old battle between idealism and reality....in other words left and right.

[Pac_Man]

It's that old battle between idealism and reality....in other words left and right.

344514[/snapback]

Yeah, but the left is a lot less idealistic than it likes to give itself credit for. Whether it's FDR's extermination bombings, LBJ's assault on the poor (and often black) family, the NY Times' decision to whitewash the Ukrainian famine, or France's decision (following WWI) to turn a blind eye to its soldiers' rape of the German women in occupied Rhineland, the left has a lot of skeletons in its closet. In fact, the communists alone have 110 million skeletons in their closet.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Whether it's FDR's extermination bombings, LBJ's assault on the poor (and often black) family, the NY Times' decision to whitewash the Ukrainian famine, or France's decision (following WWI) to turn a blind eye to its soldiers' rape of the German women in occupied Rhineland,

344547[/snapback]

 

Here we go again...

[Pac_Man]

Here we go again... 

344550[/snapback]

Interesting attitude. Perhaps you'd care to explain your sense of amusement to the family members of the victims of the Ukrainian famine. I guess it's only natural for those who grew up in safety and relative comfort (which, by your immature attitude, I'm assuming you did) to look down on the sufferings of those who had to face the threat of mass murder.

[Wacka]

IMO, your scenario is a perfect example of why interrogation should be done by those devoid of an intense and personal interest in the case/suspect/interrogation.  Due to my interpretation of God's will, I am against the death penalty.  Does this mean that I wouldn't want to shoot someone who (God forbid) raped or killed my wife?  Hell no.  But that's why I shouldn't/wouldn't be involved, other than just being granted the opportunity to speak during sentencing.

344476[/snapback]

 

 

I've got it! Campy is really Michael Dukakis!

[TheMadCap]

The idea of the cartoon (IMO) was to highlight that bad things that should not happen are happening, and was not meant to be funny.

344069[/snapback]

 

Yup, bad things happen every day.

 

Does it suck? Yes.

 

But this is a war. If, by some remote chance, hooking a guy's nutz up to a car battery can prevent another attack that will kill thousands, I got two things to say:

 

1. Red is positive

2. Black is negative

 

I wish no one would have to be tortured or killed. I wish the world was a happy, safe place to live and experience. But it isn't. There are people out there that will cut your friggin head off just because of where you come from. I, for one, am going to give the US (and UK) military a bit of slack here to do what they have to to keep us all a bit safer.

 

I don't think any reasonable person would deny the possibility that people in power might abuse a prisoner. But I also think that they are in the minority here.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Interesting attitude. Perhaps you'd care to explain your sense of amusement to the family members of the victims of the Ukrainian famine. I guess it's only natural for those who grew up in safety and relative comfort (which, by your immature attitude, I'm assuming you did) to look down on the sufferings of those who had to face the threat of mass murder.

344579[/snapback]

 

I don't look down on victims of Ukranian famine. I look down on you, you nit.

[Pac_Man]

I don't look down on victims of Ukranian famine.  I look down on you, you nit.

344794[/snapback]

That would explain your "here we go again" attitude when the subject of the Ukrainian famine came up.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That would explain your "here we go again" attitude when the subject of the Ukrainian famine came up.

344827[/snapback]

 

Actually, I was thinking more of your repetition of the "Stalin is an FDR stooge" theme. Again. You going to tell me again how Ilya Ehrenberg was the Soviet Minister of Propaganda, too? Or that Gerald Schroeder is the greatest physicist of the modern era?

[Pac_Man]

Actually, I was thinking more of your repetition of the "Stalin is an FDR stooge" theme.  Again.  You going to tell me again how Ilya Ehrenberg was the Soviet Minister of Propaganda, too?  Or that Gerald Schroeder is the greatest physicist of the modern era?

344831[/snapback]

You call this a post? I'm not going to take the time to point out each and every one of your mistakes, because in the long run that's a task which could take a lifetime. Instead, I'll focus on your quote that

Stalin is an FDR stooge

Ignoring the error of using present tense grammar in reference to men who are dead, this quote demonstrates a basic lack of understanding about everything I feel and believe about the topic. FDR needlessly insisted on unconditional German surrender, and made no distinction between a Nazi and non-Nazi German government. According to Thomas Fleming's book The New Dealers' War, Churchill was appalled by the demand for unconditional German surrender, because he realized it might well prolong the war, and prevent Hitler from being overthrown.

 

Had the U.S. made peace with a post-Nazi Germany, the war would have ended sooner, and the Iron Curtain would have been hundreds of miles to the east. The nation most strengthened by FDR's extreme position was the Soviet Union; because that nation was able to use the absence of a negotiated peace to grab Poland and half of Germany. FDR's policy of unconditional surrender therefore benefited the Soviet Union at America's expense. Whether this was because of political reasons (as Fleming implies in his book), or whether it was because of outright treason (as Coulter seems to imply in her book Treason) is almost beside the point. The bottom line is that the Soviet Union nearly launched WWIII because its overwhelming strength gave it the confidence it could win. That it did not do so was only due to Stalin's death.

 

I do not believe you have the knowledge or intellectual capacity to debate the points I've raised. Your style of debate is better suited to putting labels on people than to dealing with facts. But you're welcome to try to prove me wrong.

[Ghost of BiB]

You call this a post? I'm not going to take the time to point out each and every one of your mistakes, because in the long run that's a task which could take a lifetime. Instead, I'll focus on your quote that

 

Ignoring the error of using present tense grammar in reference to men who are dead, this quote demonstrates a basic lack of understanding about everything I feel and believe about the topic. FDR needlessly insisted on unconditional German surrender, and made no distinction between a Nazi and non-Nazi German government. According to Thomas Fleming's book The New Dealers' War, Churchill was appalled by the demand for unconditional German surrender, because he realized it might well prolong the war, and prevent Hitler from being overthrown.

 

Had the U.S. made peace with a post-Nazi Germany, the war would have ended sooner, and the Iron Curtain would have been hundreds of miles to the east. The nation most strengthened by FDR's extreme position was the Soviet Union; because that nation was able to use the absence of a negotiated peace to grab Poland and half of Germany. FDR's policy of unconditional surrender therefore benefited the Soviet Union at America's expense. Whether this was because of political reasons (as Fleming implies in his book), or whether it was because of outright treason (as Coulter seems to imply in her book Treason) is almost beside the point. The bottom line is that the Soviet Union nearly launched WWIII because its overwhelming strength gave it the confidence it could win. That it did not do so was only due to Stalin's death.

 

I do not believe you have the knowledge or intellectual capacity to debate the points I've raised. Your style of debate is better suited to putting labels on people than to dealing with facts. But you're welcome to try to prove me wrong.

344858[/snapback]

 

You are being set up...but I digress.

 

And, you are correct in a lot of that. Yalta was a piss poor thing. I don't think that your last sentence is right, though. Russia was bled white, and politically got much more than they could have through war. Remember, at the time we were the only ones with "the bomb". I don't think that was lost on them. They could fight an attrition war, but losing what was left of their infrastructure on a weekly basis was not to their taste.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You call this a post? I'm not going to take the time to point out each and every one of your mistakes, because in the long run that's a task which could take a lifetime. Instead, I'll focus on your quote that

 

More likely because you've tried...and failed...

 

Ignoring the error of using present tense grammar in reference to men who are dead, this quote demonstrates a basic lack of understanding about everything I feel and believe about the topic.

 

No, I've read your posts. The liberal left enabled Stalin's genocide by recognizing his right to rule then ignoring his excesses. You've made PLENTY of posts on it, Kurt. You've said that they (the liberal left) are complicit in the two worst cases of mass murder in the past century. You've accused FDR and Truman of actively conspiring to aid Stalin in consolidating power. And then you made up a WHOLE bunch of Nazi-sympathizing BS to try to support it...

 

FDR needlessly insisted on unconditional German surrender, and made no distinction between a Nazi and non-Nazi German government. According to Thomas Fleming's book The New Dealers' War, Churchill was appalled by the demand for unconditional German surrender, because he realized it might well prolong the war, and prevent Hitler from being overthrown.

 

Had the U.S. made peace with a post-Nazi Germany, the war would have ended sooner, and the Iron Curtain would have been hundreds of miles to the east. The nation most strengthened by FDR's extreme position was the Soviet Union; because that nation was able to use the absence of a negotiated peace to grab Poland and half of Germany. FDR's policy of unconditional surrender therefore benefited the Soviet Union at America's expense. Whether this was because of political reasons (as Fleming implies in his book), or whether it was because of outright treason (as Coulter seems to imply in her book Treason) is almost beside the point. The bottom line is that the Soviet Union nearly launched WWIII because its overwhelming strength gave it the confidence it could win. That it did not do so was only due to Stalin's death.

 

Well, speaking of made up Nazi-sympathizing BS. What a...surprise...

 

I do not believe you have the knowledge or intellectual capacity to debate the points I've raised. Your style of debate is better suited to putting labels on people than to dealing with facts. But you're welcome to try to prove me wrong.

344858[/snapback]

 

The flip side of that is, I see no particular point to arguing your inherently National Socialist points of view, based as they are in your own particular fiction. Your style of debate, having no content that is even REMOTELY rational, is far better suited to having yourself labelled than discussion. Still.

[Pac_Man]

More likely because you've tried...and failed...

No, I've read your posts.  The liberal left enabled Stalin's genocide by recognizing his right to rule then ignoring his excesses.  You've made PLENTY of posts on it, Kurt.  You've said that they (the liberal left) are complicit in the two worst cases of mass murder in the past century.  You've accused FDR and Truman of actively conspiring to aid Stalin in consolidating power.  And then you made up a WHOLE bunch of Nazi-sympathizing BS to try to support it...

Well, speaking of made up Nazi-sympathizing BS.  What a...surprise... 

The flip side of that is, I see no particular point to arguing your inherently National Socialist points of view, based as they are in your own particular fiction.  Your style of debate, having no content that is even REMOTELY rational, is far better suited to having yourself labelled than discussion.  Still.

344912[/snapback]

Other than your brief summary of your understanding of my views, I don't see any real attempt at debate in all this. Just more flames. I hate to say I told you so, but . . .

 

I told you so!

[Pac_Man]

You are being set up...but I digress.

 

And, you are correct in a lot of that. Yalta was a piss poor thing. I don't think that your last sentence is right, though. Russia was bled white, and politically got much more than they could have through war. Remember, at the time we were the only ones with "the bomb". I don't think that was lost on them. They could fight an attrition war, but losing what was left of their infrastructure on a weekly basis was not to their taste.

344867[/snapback]

I've seen a book which claimed otherwise. After the war, the U.S. and other Western Democracies disarmed; but the Soviet Union did not. Winston Churchill said that if it weren't for the U.S. atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have taken Western Europe.

 

But in the early 1950s, the U.S. still didn't have ICBMs, which meant we would have had to use planes to deliver any given atomic bomb. By that point the Soviets had bombs of their own. In any case, Stalin believed his military capable of shooting down any American plane before it could reach Moscow. The anti-air defenses that city had were quite impressive.

[Ghost of BiB]

I've seen a book which claimed otherwise. After the war, the U.S. and other Western Democracies disarmed; but the Soviet Union did not. Winston Churchill said that if it weren't for the U.S. atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have taken Western Europe.

 

But in the early 1950s, the U.S. still didn't have ICBMs, which meant we would have had to use planes to deliver any given atomic bomb. By that point the Soviets had bombs of their own. In any case, Stalin believed his military capable of shooting down any American plane before it could reach Moscow. The anti-air defenses that city had were quite impressive.

344934[/snapback]

 

The crap throwing monkey, BTW has done published papers on Russian defenses. I think he is a geek, but he seriously knows his stuff.

 

Your post here, as far as '50's nuclear strategy, makes little to no sense. Maybe, should you like, we can all learn to get along in the spirit of Thermo-Nuclear harmony?

[Pac_Man]

The crap throwing monkey, BTW has done published papers on Russian defenses. I think he is a geek, but he seriously knows his stuff.

 

Your post here, as far as '50's nuclear strategy, makes little to no sense. Maybe, should you like, we can all learn to get along in the spirit of Thermo-Nuclear harmony?

344937[/snapback]

If the quality of his paper has anything in common with the quality of his posts, I wouldn't degrade my posterior by using CTM's work as toilet paper. But I digress . . .

 

The point is, I've seen credible scholars indicate their belief that the Soviet military's ability to shoot down hostile American planes in Soviet airspace was strong. Don't expect me to dismiss this scholarly research just because someone who's been making a complete fool out of himself on a discussion board doesn't agree.

[Ghost of BiB]

If the quality of his paper has anything in common with the quality of his posts, I wouldn't degrade my posterior by using CTM's work as toilet paper. But I digress . .  .

 

The point is, I've seen credible scholars indicate their belief that the Soviet military's ability to shoot down hostile American planes in Soviet airspace was strong. Don't expect me to dismiss this scholarly research just because someone who's been making a complete fool out of himself on a discussion board doesn't agree.

344940[/snapback]

 

Credable scholars? Let me get this straight-if we were to take the 8th AF in '46 and make Russia behave, you are saying they could have stopped us? With what? A Yak?

[Pac_Man]

Credable scholars? Let me get this straight-if we were to take the 8th AF in '46 and make Russia behave, you are saying they could have stopped us? With what? A Yak?

344946[/snapback]

Stalin was planning his attack in the early 1950s. The balance of air power was significantly different in the early '50s than it was in 1946; especially when you take into account the ground-based defenses the Soviets had built.

 

Moreover, the evidence for the Soviet plan for war goes far beyond the strength of the Soviet army, air force, and anti-air defenses. During the years leading up to the end of his life, Stalin began fabricating evidence against various Jewish doctors in the Soviet Union. Scholars have concluded his plan was to "prove" these doctors were part of a larger Jewish conspiracy. Indeed, Stalin had ordered the construction of large concentration camps towards the end of his life. Stalin's plan, these historians believe, was to trace this "Jewish conspiracy" back to the United States. Soviet propaganda would claim the U.S. was controlled by Jews. Stalin would respond to this "conspiracy" by attacking the Jews within the Soviet Union, and by going to war with the "Jewish-controlled" United States.

 

It may seem unrealistic that anyone would attempt to implement the plan described above; at least to those unfamiliar with Joseph Stalin. Historians agree Stalin was an extremely paranoid man, and it may have seemed natural to him that Russians and other Soviet citizens would respond well to a plan which appealed to people's paranoia.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If the quality of his paper has anything in common with the quality of his posts, I wouldn't degrade my posterior by using CTM's work as toilet paper. But I digress . .  .

 

The point is, I've seen credible scholars indicate their belief that the Soviet military's ability to shoot down hostile American planes in Soviet airspace was strong. Don't expect me to dismiss this scholarly research just because someone who's been making a complete fool out of himself on a discussion board doesn't agree.

344940[/snapback]

 

For Christ's sakes, you think Gerald Schroeder is a credible physicist. You wouldn't know a credible scholar if he walked up and bit you in the ass.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Funny. Clay Bennett also won a Pulitzer Prize (2002) for work like this:

 

Clay Bennett

[Pac_Man]

For Christ's sakes, you think Gerald Schroeder is a credible physicist.  You wouldn't know a credible scholar if he walked up and bit you in the ass.

345072[/snapback]

Is this your way of trying to say you're a "credible" scholar? Or is it your way of saying you like to bite people on their behinds?

[Britbillsfan]

Right, the US army is far worse than the Islamic Terrorists. All they do is cut the head of construction workers who are there to rebuild the country. And then people in Iraq cry that the services are not being fixed quick enough. Let's not forgot the shooting of charity workers in the back of their heads. Where are the cartoons about those actions?

344144[/snapback]

Where in the post did I say the US military was worse than the bunch of scum running around blowing people up. I clearly stated the vast majority are good people doing a difficult job in awful circumstances.

 

Torturing an innocent man to death in the name of interrogation IS just as bad as butchering an innocent man on TV for whatever warped reasons those MFers have. Those responsible for the use of torture to commit murder are as bad as those doing the beheadings. But guess what, I do not consider the torturers to be representative of the US armed forces, but bad seeds alowed to run amok because of bad leadership.

 

Torture is not only wrong, morally, but it is self defeating in the long run. The refusal to accept this is going to cause a lot more pain in the long run for the West, especially the US, because it is an ideal tool for future recruitment due to the hatred it is causing.

[Britbillsfan]

You may be right. But, and this is a huge point, what incentive do these criminals and murderers have to talk without coercion?

344434[/snapback]

None, and this IS a point worthy of discussion.

 

To put it in a more real world alternative that may persuade some of you who appear to have a taste for torturing suspects.....

 

The IRA were a bunch of racist marxist scum who would never have been able to run an awful campaign against mostly civilian targets. They blew up a wide variety of targets causing great loss of life in the civilian population.

 

Early on in this campaign torture was certainly used to get information and confessions, upon which 'terrorists' were sent to jail for a very long time. End result - the Briitish managed to force large parts of the nationalist community into supporting the IRA, when they probably would not have done otherwise. We encouraged them by our actions and injustices. The shooting of civilians on Bloody Sunday led to over 20 years of bloodshed and the false imprisonment of 'confessed terrorists' (as in confessed under torture) aided this campaign of hate no end.

 

Only when we got smart and stopped using these tactics of interrogation did we start having success against the IRA - we knew who the bastards were by the end of the campaign, but due to good intel, not the torture kind, we were able to so severely hamper the IRA operations that they were all but shut down as far as spectaculars went (you can never stop all attacks - that would have been a pipe dream). Recruitment of informers, largely due to dius-satisfaction with the IRA campaign and knowledge that the UK was now behaving like a civilised nation should, went right up to upper echelons of the IRA and the war was effectively syopped.

 

The IRA are still a bunch of criminals involved in all sorts of crimes, but they are now becoming more and more a criminal network rather than self styled freedom fighters with every passing week. Their days are numbered, largely because they will begin to wear out their 'popular' support, allowing Sein Fein to become properly independent of them and become a real political party rather than the mouth piece of some really nasty types.

 

And even today it is impossible to get information from an IRA terrorist under interrogation, but we only stopped the campaign by stopping our own barbarities first.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

None, and this IS a point worthy of discussion.

 

To put it in a more real world alternative that may persuade some of you who appear to have a taste for torturing suspects.....

 

The IRA were a bunch of racist marxist scum who would never have been able to run an awful campaign against mostly civilian targets. They blew up a wide variety of targets causing great loss of life in the civilian population.

 

Early on in this campaign torture was certainly used to get information and confessions, upon which 'terrorists' were sent to jail for a very long time. End result - the Briitish managed to force large parts of the nationalist community into supporting the IRA, when they probably would not have done otherwise. We encouraged them by our actions and injustices. The shooting of civilians on Bloody Sunday led to over 20 years of bloodshed and the false imprisonment of 'confessed terrorists' (as in confessed under torture) aided this campaign of hate no end.

 

Only when we got smart and stopped using these tactics of interrogation did we start having success against the IRA - we knew who the bastards were by the end of the campaign, but due to good intel, not the torture kind, we were able to so severely hamper the IRA operations that they were all but shut down as far as spectaculars went (you can never stop all attacks - that would have been a pipe dream). Recruitment of informers, largely due to dius-satisfaction with the IRA campaign and knowledge that the UK was now behaving like a civilised nation should, went right up to upper echelons of the IRA and the war was effectively syopped.

 

The IRA are still a bunch of criminals involved in all sorts of crimes, but they are now becoming more and more a criminal network rather than self styled freedom fighters with every passing week. Their days are numbered, largely because they will begin to wear out their 'popular' support, allowing Sein Fein to become properly independent of them and become a real political party rather than the mouth piece of some really nasty types.

 

And even today it is impossible to get information from an IRA terrorist under interrogation, but we only stopped the campaign by stopping our own barbarities first.

345133[/snapback]

 

If you'll pardon a bit of jaded skepticism, I don't think Arabs will react in the same way the Irish would have. These "people" we're fighting are religious fanatics, not political terrorists. There's a huge difference between someone who's fighting for a nationalist goal and one who's willing to die to go to Heaven so he can get stroked by 999 virgins or what not.

[Britbillsfan]

If you'll pardon a bit of jaded skepticism, I don't think Arabs will react in the same way the Irish would have. These "people" we're fighting are religious fanatics, not political terrorists. There's a huge difference between someone who's fighting for a nationalist goal and one who's willing to die to go to Heaven so he can get stroked by 999 virgins or what not.

345153[/snapback]

Jaded skepticism is fine, after all we are dealing with particular sick and twisted sh*ts. But I would still argue against using torture for sound operational reasons, not just moral ones.

 

We can agree that the gathering information on terrorist groups is key to defeating them.

 

The problem with torture, as has been proven time and again throughout history, is that the information gathered is not necessarily the truth but what the victim will believe will stop the torture. In other words they will make things up to stop the pain. Therefore its use can have some success, but equally can have you barking up the wrong tree on too many occassions. This is a real issue.

 

Informants are largely the key to defeating the scum in the long term. I would not expect many (only a tiny number at best) of AQ fanatics to turncoat, but there are many muslims who see AQ as an abberation and evil (after all they kill more muslims than westerners by far) and do fight against them. There will be brave souls willing to risk their lives to infiltrate these groups IF they think they are doing it for the 'right' side. If the US & allies use torture or are responsible for the deaths of more innocent Iraqi civilians than the terrorists (which is the case currently) then they are not likely to risk their lives to support the US/allies.

 

The pretty widespread use of torture is also a publicity coup for the terrorists. It attracts those who might otherwise not take up arms into their movements as it makes great copy and is easy enough to show as happening. Abu Ghraib was a godsend for their publicity efforts. But other stories of US/allied abuses stoke the fires of militancy.

 

What really bugs me is the fact that these tactics are not helping the US/allies, but the really evil men we are fighting.