Soldier Candidate Launches "Phony" Attack On Limbaugh

Oh, he was a soldier alright and he's running for office, but I still call BS on the way he phrases things in this repugnant video below. He was "in Beirut when his roommate was killed just a few thousand yards away."

Oh, you mean like when he was on land, as in, actually in Beirut while you were a few thousand yards away in a ship, apparently the entire time? If the entire meme wasn't bogus I'd let this slide. But the few thousand yards comment sounded a little weird. He's referring to Marine David Nairn - see a comment here from someone claiming to be a friend. Nairn and others who died in Beirut are memorialized without the politics here. Massa doesn't even mention him on his campaign website and a Google search turns up no linkage to the two names. Nice of Massa to remember his roommate at such an opportune time.

One deployment saw us for many months off the coast of Beirut in direct support of our Marines ashore

Comments

[Nuff Said McGreavey]

I know! Compared to Rush's and your courageous service, HE'S the coward!

Nuff Said!

[Mary Contrary]

Yes, Eric Massa was on a ship. He was an officer in the U.S. Navy. That's where they tend to serve. Does this come as a surprise to you?

P.S. Army personnel are typically called "soldiers," as opposed to Navy personnel, who are commonly known as "sailors."

[dumbblonde]

OK, Nuff.

The issue at hand is the issue of honesty. Not who did or did not serve, not who is or is not courageous. The point of the post is that the man's statement appears to be a fabrication.

Honesty. You know, kinda like when you make your argument by sticking to the topic at hand, instead of trying to cloud the issue by changing the subject.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

"Yes, Eric Massa was on a ship. He was an officer in the U.S. Navy. That's where they tend to serve. Does this come as a surprise to you?"

OMG, are you freekin' serious? Have you ever even driven past a naval installation? The majority of navy personnel have never even been on the docks, much less a ship. For pete's sake educate yourself if you're gonna be a smart ass.

[Dan Riehl]

blow your curds and whatever else yer eating out yer butt, Mary - I'm well aware of the conventions. This is about politics, not the military and "soldier" served for my purpose here.

It might have been nice had your "sailor" boy had something to offer regarding his fallen comrade before it suited his political agenda. I doubt he has the authority to speak on his behalf all these years later.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

"I know! Compared to Rush's and your courageous service, HE'S the coward!"

Eight years of a president who dodged the draft...and then lied about it and what's important to you is a radio entertainer and a blogger.......Where'd you serve general?

[Mary Contrary]

A little education for you, Willie. All sailors must spend 1 year at sea for every two years they do on land. And for the record, I've driven past, into and through many "naval installations" (also known as "Navy Bases") in my career.

Dan, "soldier" does indeed serve your purpose. As does prevarication. You have no idea what Massa "offered" his friend, nor whether he can speak on his behalf.

All we do know is what Ronald Reagan offered Nairn in Lebanon. It's similar to what Bush offers in Iraq. Which is probably why Massa is working to stop him.

[Dan Riehl]

"what Ronald Reagan offered Nairn in Lebanon"

Terrorists killed our Marines, and your position is Reagan bad for cutting and running, Bush bad for not? Real bright, Mary. All I had wrong was the nursery rhyme - I guess your garden grows liberals all in a lovely row. feh

[Mary Contrary]

I thought the position was obvious, but for you, Dan, I'll spell it out.

Reagan put the Marines in an untenable position, in the middle of a civil war. Twenty five years later, Bush shows he is incapable of learning from history (or any other subject).

But you are right about two things. Liberalism is growing. And it is lovely.

[Dan Riehl]

If you're a sign of it, then it's also very dumb. Equating Lebanon with Iraq is just foolish.

[Mary Contrary]

Only to dead-enders, Dan. Only to dead-enders.

Good night.

[tom]

Dan

Don't let these cowards and liars off the hook. Rush wanted to serve, and President George W. Bush did all he could to stay qualified as a Pilot, but the Liberals got his Certification taken away.

The real heros are the patriots who support all wars by speaking in favor of them, hanging ribbons on trees and cars, etc.

Anyone can go into combat: a real hero, like Rush, calls out cowards and liars.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

"All sailors must spend 1 year at sea for every two years they do on land."
Having spent a great deal of my life just outside NAS Oceana, I knew that. I mistookk your statement to imply all sailors are always aboard ship.
I would not equate Lebanon with Iraq either. We were invited to Lebanon to help quell their civil war. Saddam kept the lid on his fighting factions albeit by murdering the weaker ones. The whole "world police" thing hasn't worked very well in any administration. At least I've learned that I can blame Carter for a messed up back and dead buddies left behind in operation blue light........

[Jerry D]

Looks like everyone has an ax to grind. How about looking at what is actually said or written before anyone calls anyone names. I saw the ABC news segment concerning the "phony hero's" a week before Limbaugh made his statement about "phony soldiers" yet I heard no congressman vilifying ABC News. I have also read about a number of "phony soldiers", over the last few years, both on the web and in national newspapers, including the NY Times, but I did not see the hue and cry to close those "news" outlets. I also heard the original broadcast of Limbaugh's statement, along with going back and looking at it on the web and Limbaugh did not call all soldiers who are against the war phony. He only call the "soldiers" "phony soldiers" who claim to have done things that they did not do. Have you ever heard of "Operation Stolen Valor"? How about Reggie Buddle, Larry Lewis Porter, Roy J. Scott, Merrick K. Hersey, Michael D, Heit, and a lot of other including the "phony soldier" that got Limbaugh into trouble, Jesse Macbeth. All these "phony soldiers" were outed by "Operation Stolen Valor". How about opening your ears and eyes so that you will know what was said and written before you pop off using lies as supporting evidence. Everyone has a right to be for or against this war. People do not have a right to lie about their record to get publicity in an attempt to gain support for their position. Stop being sheep and use your brain to analyze the facts and then use the facts to persuade other to your view. There is no need for namecalling. The TRUTH is the TRUTH and if you have to lie to make people believe "your truth" then something is wrong with you.

[rwilymz]

"All sailors must spend 1 year at sea for every two years they do on land."

...except if they have certain ratings which do not lend themselves to sea duty. But you knew that.

See, "ratings" is the squid version of "MOS" which is the grunt version of "AFSC". But when using generics to refer to "military folks", it's amazing how often we use "MOS" and "soldier" for "MOS/rating/AFSC" and "soldier, sailor, airman, jarhead".

"for the record, I've driven past, into and through many "naval installations" (also known as "Navy Bases") in my career."

Then you know that not all naval installations are called "bases", doncha? There's also "air stations". Just like not all Air Force installations are called "bases"; there's also "stations" ... and US Air Force bases in foreign territory are specifically prohibited from being called Air FORCE Base, but simply "Air Base". Just like not all Army installations are called "forts"; some are "posts". ...

""soldier" does indeed serve your purpose. As does prevarication."

So let me get this straight: a liar caught in a lie is attempting to get out of it by calling his catcher a liar.

Izzat close?

You're attempting to use a dizzying display of semantic noncery -- which isn't even strictly accurate -- to ping someone for saying something that you have ideological qualms about because you have little other recourse.

How phenomenally dishonest of you.

"Reagan put the Marines in an untenable position, in the middle of a civil war."

Yet it's amazing how quickly the Druze and Syrian-puppet Hezbollah stopped their civil war to blow up the Americans once given the opportunity, eh? A veritable "CWINO".

"Twenty five years later, Bush shows he is incapable of learning from history"

Bush didn't put US soldiers [which includes sailors, airmen and jarheads] into the middle of an Iraqi civil war, Mister History; the civil war grew up around the US soldiers [which includes yadda].

Bush may be incapable of learning from history, but you seem incapable of reading the papers to discern current events.

"Liberalism is growing. And it is lovely."

Really. Then explain this one: the same liberalism which posits Reagan an R-Tard for putting US soldiers [nay: jarheads] into "an untenable position" by interjecting them into an existing civil war, is currently angling for an interjection of US soldiery [which includes blah-blah] into the existing civil war in Sudan in order to "save" the poor dishevelled masses of slave-trading Fur revolutionaries. These same liberals also angled for, and *got*, an interjection of US soldiery [yep; you guessed it] into the existing civil war between the brutes of the Serb government and the KLA revolutionaries.

Seems history is just a tough subject to master, do'nit there?

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

RW: thus my point that bein the world's police has seldom gone well. Strangely the left seems to forget the (at least equal) number of times that a demonrat has rushed to intervene in the squabbles of other nations. Like sending "American boys" to do the job of "Vietnamese boys" for instance. My fave remains being run off the Haitian beaches while trying to deliver food.

[Fred Beloit]

Massa, Nuff, Mary and you other geniuses, you have forgotten history, but others haven't.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/uh-oh-dems-open-up-pandoras-box-of.html

[narciso]

I knew the guy was fake, since Esquire; the publication that wrote last year; "Do we
deserve someone like John Walker Lindh" was
talking him up. Lebanon was a proxy war by
Iran, with Syria providing diplomatic cover
for Hezbollah's operatives like Imad Mughniyeh.
Did Massa forget that Beirut was one of the first proofs to Bin Laden (the details were
relayed to him by Mugniyeh in 1996) that America
was a paper tiger.

[Mary Contrary]

RW:

The correct designation for Marine is not "jarhead." It is Marine. "Jarhead" is a nickname.

The Lebanese Civil War did not "stop" with the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

Lastly, if memory serves, Clinton didn't introduce any troops into the Bosnian civil war. It was an air campaign. So no troops were placed in an "untenable position."

History is indeed a tough subject to master. But you could at least try.

[rwilymz]

"The correct designation for Marine is not "jarhead.""

Depends on who you are.

"Lastly, if memory serves, Clinton didn't introduce any troops into the Bosnian civil war"

Right.

He violated every tenet of the tactical war bible.

I believe I mentioned that.

You don't read very well, do you?

"It was an air campaign"

Not by design.

...as Clark attempted to remind his boss.

"So no troops were placed in an "untenable position.""

First: didn't say they were.

Second: by changing the plan on the fly, he put the American **allies** in the untenable position. ...which is always a handy thing to do.

"History is indeed a tough subject to master. But you could at least try."

Practice that in front of your mirror.

[Mary Contrary]

Imagine that, a President who actually changes strategies in order to be successful on the battlefield.

Unheard of.

Ah, the good old days.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Presidents shouldn't be calling strategy. That's what generals are for.

[rwilymz]

"a President who actually changes strategies in order to be successful on the battlefield."

And pisses off the allies -- who had agreed to a war plan that involved obtaining air superiority, eliminating C2, and counter-air capability and then marching in to stabilize the arena with ground forces.

But Clinton got cold feet at the last minute, declared that US ground forces would not be involved [though Frog and Limey forces were free to go in if they wanted] and refused to allow US aircraft to fly below the max ceiling of suspected remaining SAM batteries.

The Brits and French said "if you're not going, we're not going", the ground attacks against the KLA we were "supporting" continued, and because the US could not fly below 35,000 ft, there was no low-level recon to double-check the high-alt and sat imagery and the US mistook the Chinese embassy for a military warehouse and a Kosov refugee train for a Serb armored column -- to disastrous results all the way around.

By gum! that Clinton sure rewrote Clauswitz all over the place, didnee?

The **authority** to give orders does not equal the *ability* to give orders.

But, sure, the US suffered no combat casualties in the Kosov pre-emptive war for regime change. Ring one up for the good guys.

Yeehah.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Those would be our NATO allies, soome of whom refused to help in Iraq, yes? Probably not a residual effect though.....probably not.

[rwilymz]

"Probably not a residual effect though"

Definitely not.

In Kosovo, we were responding to the United States of Europe need to quell a festering bloodbath [second in the decade] on their southern border. The EU was attempting at that time to unite their economies and become a scaled, efficient economic power -- like the US.

Theoretically, that doesn't bother us.

But what happens when you open up [for all practical purposes] a shopping mall and you have a gang war going on one block south of your mall entrance? You lose business.

Europe couldn't afford to have Serbia being high, mighty neo-Tito, and even though there was no IntLaw justification to interpose in what was an entirely internal Serb domestic problem, NATO declared that the ethnic Albanians crossing borders as refugees constituted "violations of sovereignty" [thus rewriting existing IntLaw on the subject] and declared they could intervene.

They did so.

We helped, because Europe is our friend.

As regards Iraq, France had entirely their own agenda independent from ours -- almost entirely financial in scope. Where it wasn't financial, it was egoist.

They were getting kickbacks from the Hussein guvmint's profits under Oil4Food, a market for their [cease-fire prohibited] armaments, and yet another opportunity to thumb their nose at the US who had supplanted them as the western focus of panislamist outrage -- a position France had held for well over a century. National pride does odd things.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Very interesting RW. Always like your analysis.

[Mary Contrary]

"But, sure, the US suffered no combat casualties in the Kosov pre-emptive war for regime change. Ring one up for the good guys.

Yeehah."

You sound disappointed.

[Mary Contrary]

Astonishing. In your zeal to bash Clinton, Wesley Clark and whoever else isn't to the right of Chuck Hagel, you forget that the military action you sneer at was wildly successful in terms of American casualties, and stopped a evil known as ethnic cleansing.

As for the Chinese embassy, there are those who believe that that little accident was not all that accidental. Be that as it may, I'm sure Bush would trade the "collateral damage" of the Bosnian War for the problems involved in his occupation any day of the week.

Or maybe not. Conservatives are kinda bloodthirsty that way.

[Mary Contrary]

Oh, lastly.

Do you really think the only reason the refugee train was bombed was because the planes were flying at too high an altitude? Have plane flying lower never mistakenly hit friendly targets?

Have you ever heard of a gentleman named Pat Tillman?

The term you're looking for is "Fog of war." Instead of referencing von Clausewitz, maybe you should go back and actually read him.

[seekeronos]

Truth be told, I think we backed the wrong horse in that Kosovo-Serbia dust-up.

There'd be a lot less extremist Muslims to do business with AQ and other Caliphatist entities in that corner of Europe had Milosevic been left to do his ugly business.

(I say this from a rather coldblooded POV as regarding the best use of our forces, which IMHO, would have been non-intervention or at a minimum, intelligence support to the Serbians).

[Fred Belot]

Mary, this was merely a cheap shot with no underlying truth. Something that nowinkie might have said. Oh, you are nowinkie. Never mind.

[rwilymz]

"You sound disappointed."

I work in the field of war planning/execution/supply. When our leaders do dumb things for dumb reasons it increases our workload somewhat, but more than that it makes us have to REdo what we've already done ... but in a different direction. I'm either efficient or lazy, depending on how you want to look at it, and dislike having to redo work.

Particularly for something as transitory as partisan ideology.

"Astonishing."

Yeah, I pretty much am...

"In your zeal to bash Clinton, Wesley Clark and whoever else ..."

You don't get what this discussion is about, do you?

You snivelly queried about which of our military leaders we had a right to criticize; the answer is "all of them", and I added the caveat of intellectual honesty [seeing as that was somewhat a requisite in your original snideness] that if you wished to criticize honestly, make your criticisms supportible.

Mine are.

Clinton, Clark, et al did dumb things that were dumb for very specific reasons, and which had very specific detriments. There is no "bashing" going on. Nothing at all along the lines of "your team sucks!!" I'm sorry, but when a player on your team grounds into a game-ending double play with the winning run on third, then he grounded into a game-ending double play with the winning run on third. There's no point in equivocating.

For what it's worth, the current operation has had its share of dumb things/dumb reasons, but I have yet to hear the typical critic talk much about them. I personally believe it's because the typical critic doesn't know enough about the subject to understand what's dumb and why.

"you forget that the military action you sneer at ..."

I'm not sneering. I'm simply not equivocating. You need to learn to discern the difference.

"the military action ...was wildly successful in terms of American casualties".

Okay. The Iraq war/occupation is also wildly successful in terms of US casualties as well, though we would both be hard-pressed to find critics-on-the-street to acknowledge it [mostly because most of them are military history illiterates and do not grasp the first thing about honest analysis: compare/contrast similar operations].

All US military operations since Grenada have been wildly successful yadda in terms of blah-blah, both friendly and enemy, soldier and civilian.

But even so, what does this buy us? If it doesn't buy us something tangible in terms of foreign policy, then it's irrelevant.

We don't get a prize for staging the first war with -0- combat deaths. It is a triviality at best. The results that mean a damn are those that are carried forward.

War is risk, and it is moreso the balancing of risks. The more risk we take on ourselves the less we make others bear; the *less* we take on ourselves, the *more* we force others to bear. We operated in Kosovo as part of a team. But our team leader refused to accept normal risk. ...though he very congenially offered our friends and allies to accept our risk on our behalf. Odd that they'd turn us down ... flatly ... wudnit?

Specific risk that our CinC refused to allow the US to accept included the risk of low-level recon -- standard operating procedure in target confirmation. Refusal to accept this risk increased the risk that the targets acquired were incorrectly acquired. When we hit the wrong things, it makes us look bad; when we hit the wrong things **because we were taking the cold-footed way out** it makes us look foolish and inept.

So stack your -0- combat deaths against a whole world mocking us for being military incompetents and see which has a longer shelf-life.

"the military action ... stopped a evil known as ethnic cleansing."

Hardly. Not even close. Can't be done, in fact.

But, sure, we stopped one guy doing it, and hauled his ass in front of a tribunal and got all self-righteously pumped about it. Paste a gold star on your foreheads and have a cookie.

"Ethnic cleansing", i.e., taking the war to the populace, is War As She Was Made; it's as old as human civilization. It is, in fact, in only the last 150 [+-] years that any humans have decided it's rude, and those humans are entirely contained in The West; 75% of the world currently practices "ethnic cleansing" as a matter of course and with no guilt. If we were to *stop* "ethnic cleansing" we would have to undertake force against perpetrators of it in: Somalia, Sudan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Iran [I'd-a said Iraq, but we halted the main practitioner of it there], and a half a hundred other places. If we were to *stop* "ethnic cleansing" which didn't strictly use enthnic boundaries to make its distinctions, we'd be warring in a half a hundred *other* places [with some duplication, naturally].

...or else it can't be stopped.

"As for the Chinese embassy, there are those who believe that that little accident was not all that accidental."

There are also those who believe that Vince Foster was murdered. I lend them the same credence.

"Oh, lastly."

Oh, dear, god, do you not get tired of advertising your credulity?

"Do you really think the only reason the refugee train was bombed was because the planes were flying at too high an altitude?"

That was the conclusion of the inquest.

Hearken back to what I said about risk and the balancing thereof. If we were to have accepted more risk to our pilots in flying low-altitude target-confirmation sorties, then the risk to wads of civilian refugees [Chinese embassy workers, etc] would have been greatly reduced.

Eliminated? No. And your attempted false-dichotomy is noted for either:
1] advertising your misplacement in this discussion, or
2] dishonest participation.

"Instead of referencing von Clausewitz, maybe you should go back and actually read him."

If I were to REread Clauswitz, it'd be my third time... REreading. But thanks for your concern.

Perhaps you can offer some insight into the three clauswitzian factors necessary for attaining actual victory:
1] defeat the enemy's military
2] defeat the enemy's capacity to *make* war
3] defeat the enemy's *willingness to support* war
and give a treatise on how those are playing into the military action ongoing in Iraq, and how it bodes for our foreign policy, now and in the future.

[seekeronos]

"They (the Romans) make a desert, and they call it peace." (Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

[Mary Contrary]

I thought you'd never ask.

Since you have (re)read von Clausewitz, I'm quite sure you're familiar with his definition of war.

This is where the typical conservative generally gets tripped up. (And I'm not sure you're a typical conservative. I don't frequent this board. I followed it via a memeorandum.com link last Tuesday night)

Most people on your side believe that a war is won by defeating the enemy's' battalions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thus your misreading of von Clauswitz' factors. Those are, in fact, the factors necessary for winning a military campaign. Winning a war is different.

"War is politics by other means." The statement means countries go to war to achieve political aims. When one side achieves those political aims, they win the war and the other side loses.

The Peloponnesian War --> Control of the Greek World
The War of the Roses --> English Succession
The American Civil War --> Preservation of the Union

In a sense, you are correct. NATO victory in Bosnia did not prevent ethnic cleansing. But then, that was not their aim. The aim of NATO in Bosnia was to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. And in that, they were stunningly successful.

You are also correct that zero casualties is not the determining factor of win or loss in any war. It is simply a pleasant side effect. The determining factor is that we achieved our political goals. Ethnic cleansing was stopped in Kosovo.

Your "clauswitzian factors," while pleasing to the conservative ear, don't stand up to the reality of modern day warfare. All of that changed with the invention of the greatest tool of warfare ever invented, one that von Clausewitz did not know, and could have never forseen.

We call it television.

It's the reason the US lost the Vietnam war. The United States followed Clausewitz down to the letter, won every battle, and still lost the war. Why? Because North Vietnam was able to follow a different strategy, an essentially non-military strategy. It did not defeat its enemy, it did not defeat its enemy's capacity to make war. But the North's strategy allowed it to realize its political aims, a Communist government allied with the Soviet Union.

As for how this plays into the present conflict, well, it's safe to say this war was lost before it began. Because the stated reason, the elimination of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, was impossible to achieve, given those weapons didn't exist. The new reason, the creation of an independent democracy in Iraq, is laughable. We are a thousand times more likely to see the creation of an Islamic theocracy aligned with Iran, than we ever are to see the creation of anything even remotely in America's interests.

But if you want Clausewitz, I'll give you Clausewitz.

1. We will never defeat the enemy's military, because the enemy has no military. The insurgency is a Hydra. You kill one insurgent, and 1+ will spring up to take its place.

2. We cannot defeat the enemy's capacity to make war. The Improvised Explosive Device is, cheap, easily made, and for the purposes of this conflict, an inexhaustible resource.

3. We cannot defeat the enemy's willingness to support the war, because they enemy draws its support for the war from our very presence. They will fight us as long as we are there. Only after we leave will they turn their full attentions to each other.

How does this bode for our foreign policy? Not well. The resevoir of good will that we had after 9/11 world wide has dried up. Countries that would be natural allies in the fight against Al Qaeda are at best, standoffish, at worst, openly hostile. A main source of friction in the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, remains unaddressed. An old rival, Iran, is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.

The worst part of it was that all this was foretold by those who cautioned against this war. But their voices were drowned out by the loud, incessant beating of the war drums.

Now, we set about the task of reaping the whirlwind.

As for me, my task of delivering to you your treatise is complete.

[rwilymz]

"I thought you'd never ask."

You never considered the likelihood.

"Most people on your side..."

Which "side" is that? I do not tolerate presumption pointed at me.

"a war is won by defeating the enemy's' battalions. Nothing could be further from the truth."

That is how the battles are won. Correct.

"Thus your misreading of von Clauswitz' factors."

My ... what?

"Those are, in fact, the factors necessary for winning a military campaign. Winning a war is different."

Distinction without difference. You are attempting, for the third time in this thread, to spin yourself around the axle with semantic distinctions that mean nothing. Not gonna happen. You do not get to redefine military doctrine for local purposes and then declare some trap be sprung, ha ha, you win by virtue of 'up' meaning 'down' in your interpretation. Play the Walrus and Mock Turtle somewhere else.

"When one side achieves those political aims, they win the war and the other side loses."

Only if they have the same political aims. Only if they **keep** the same political aims from start to finish. Only if the political aims are known and understood by those doing the dissection afterwards.

"The aim of NATO in Bosnia was to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo."

It was?

According to whom?

According to the story "they" broadcast to the military geniuses on barstools across NATOland? ...or according to those in power while discussing it in their halls of power?

"in that, they were stunningly successful."

NATO stopped Slobo, yes. The cost of that "stopping" is open-ended "containment" the purpose of which is effectively to keep the separatist-minded Balkan clans which precipitated the original conflict [the Kosovs, in case you didn't get your playbook] from restarting another. And since this is the Balkans we're talking about, what is the likelihood they will? [roughly 100%, give or take]. Which means that "success" is contingent upon perpetual "containment".

So, laud the success of *that*.

"Ethnic cleansing was stopped in Kosovo."

**Slobo** was stopped from "ethnic cleansing". That is it.

"Your "clauswitzian factors,"... don't stand up to the reality of modern day warfare."

If you had said "are entirely definitive" you'd have been correct.

Alas.

"We call it television. It's the reason the US lost the Vietnam war."

You start out well ...

"The United States followed Clausewitz down to the letter..."

You slip up here, though.

"North Vietnam was able to follow a different strategy"

You completely fall off the reason-wagon here.

Ho Chi Mihn was a student of western philosophy, including Clauswitz. He knew he couldn't beat the American military [he only had one notable victory against the French, even]; he certainly couldn't take on US military industry. What he could do, though, was defeat American **willingness to wage wag**. And this is where television came in.

"As for how this plays into the present conflict, well ..."

As with the weenie in the other place, some folks have been traumatized by a defining moment in their past and so the interpret and re-interpret all succeeding moments in terms of the past moment.

Whole cadres of Vietnam war protesters are protesting the Vietnam war all over again; a cohort who lost out on the populist relevance and insta-validity being a war protester afforded are following suit. If the only tool you have is a hammer... If the only mindset you have is Vietnam Protest ...

"Because the stated reason..."

First: stated reasons ... like those having to do with Kosovo above ... are the public face of mass-produced politics. Their purpose is to bullshit the masses, in large part because, after all, "we call it television".

I really shouldn't be surprised at the selective ignorance of the simpletons who do not understand what they know. Politics in democratic societies now has the obligation to be instantly answerable to its public. Which means it has to say SOMEthing. It cannot say what is right, true, or accurate particularly in military matters for that would "lose the war before it began" so it find test audiences and measures public reactions to various stories -- just as if they were selling you detergent with bluing for whiteness -- and pick the best one. Kosovo was for the liberation of the poow, poow kosov civiwians? Su-u-u-ure it was.

"..., the elimination of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, was impossible to achieve, given those weapons didn't exist."

Second: BZZZZZT!

You've been sold an opposing bill of goods by the opposing politics. The chemical weapons existed; the UN found boatlads between '92 and '98, stored them in Iraqi warehouses, and when they came back in '02 ... as Hans Bliz reported to the UNSC in late '02: Iraq has "failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs".

"The new reason, the creation of an independent democracy in Iraq, is laughable."

It's not instantaneous, no. They have 5,000 of tyranny habituation to unlearn first.

But that was also one of those market-research political stories concocted for mass-consumption.

"I'll give you Clausewitz"

I sincerely doubt that, but give it your best shot.

"We will never defeat the enemy's military, because the enemy has no military"

They don't? That's odd.

Oh, oh, right. You require **uniforms** to define "military". That's your mistake.

"You kill one insurgent, and 1+ will spring up to take its place."

But, ...but you just said they had no military, and now you're saying they do. Could you make up your mind please?

"We cannot defeat the enemy's capacity to make war."

It's easier than critics think, actually, but far more difficult to implement. "Television" and instant access to detail, again...

"The Improvised Explosive Device is, cheap, easily made, and for the purposes of this conflict, an inexhaustible resource."

Cheap: depends on many factors.
Easily made: check ... as long as they have the manufactured munition base.
Inexaustible: your caveat notwithstanding, IEDs require a manufacture explosive; home-grown is fine for strapping to your chest and taking out a dozen Jews in a Tel Aviv cafe, but even Hamas hooligans use Syrian or Iranian rockets to go against the IDF.

Now, given that at least two of the IEDs in Iraq were using old Iraqi chem-shell stock for the manufactured base [thus shooting your prior contention that they were nonexistent right in the ass], there is, effectively, an upper finite limit on the supply of old Iraqi artillery shells -- chem or otherwise. Once that supply runs out [and arguably even before, since absconded military stock is only free to those who have it, which are not necessarily those who wish to use it] they must buy more. They gotta come from somewhere.

"We cannot defeat the enemy's willingness to support the war"

Axiomatic truths are rarely axiomatic or truth.

"they enemy draws its support for the war from our very presence."

Except when they don't. This is one of the fundamental realities that modern weenies fail to comprehend: there was no modern starting point for modern panislamist paramilitary posturing.

They hated us and acted against us before we had troops in Saudi, before we meaningfully supported Israel, before, ... before, ... before. Modern panislamis is simply a Movement Of The Time, and really owes nothing to its existence and impetus apart from itself. Panislamism exists because panislamists wish it to, and they -- like Clinton who buffaloed you on Kosovo, and Bush who buffaloed you on Iraq -- are buffaloing their own on why they exist. ... and you're falling for *that* too.

Don't you get tired of being a patsy?

"They will fight us as long as we are there."

And they'll continue when we leave.

Lebanon, '83. We left. Did they stop?

"Only after we leave will they turn their full attentions to each other."

Dig it, squirt: In late '03 the Iraqi factions were fairly united in opposition to US presence in "their country". Right? [of course I am]

But taking us on directly -- armored vehicles, hardened targets, personal armor -- carries little bang for their buck [dinari, whatever]. In short, they weren't getting anywhere. Paramilitarism relies on splashy headlines.

So they shifted tactics. Instead of concentrating on US soldiery, they concentrated on the Iraqi camp-followers of the US soldiery -- the interpreters, the drivers, the day-laborers. Sooner than later some of these proxy targets got tired of being targeted by proxy and started returning serve. Inside a year Iraq went from being a gang-tackle of The Great Satan, and became instead a burgeoning civil war in which American casualties were, for all practical purposes, incidental.

They have done, in full view of US occupation, what you said they would only do without it.

"The resevoir of good will that we had after 9/11 world wide has dried up."

On 9-12.

"Countries that would be natural allies in the fight against Al Qaeda are at best, standoffish, at worst, openly hostile."

"We call it television." You continue to not understand what you know.

"The worst part of it was that all this was foretold by those who cautioned against this war. But their voices were drowned out by the loud, incessant beating of the war drums."

Is your chin quivering?

Or are you rubbing your hands together in pre-postapocolyptic glee?

Don't look now, but loud, incessant war drums are being beaten for the poow, poow Fur slave-traders, by those simpletons who dislike "pre-emptive war for regime change" ... except when they start one.

"As for me, my task of delivering to you your treatise is complete"

You gave a bunch of words, yes. Too bad it's almost entirely superficial nonsense.

[Wahoo Wiilie Sez]

Nice to see people debate, with intelligence and minimum personal insults. As regards Iraq & Vietnam I think you both missed an important point. The willingness of the local population to capitulate and the willingness of the invader to break them into subjugation. OK, poor way of putting it. The Iraqi's do not want our version of democracy, the muslims of the region want it even less. If they did, they would've siezed control from Saddam ages ago. Which brings the point of the invader's willingness to force subjugation. Saddam's willingness to rape,torture,murder, GAS whole villages is proven even to the farthest of lefties. While the west, particularly the US, whines because putting panties on a man's head is "torture". The people of the region consider us weak, unwilling to do what it takes to subjugate the population while on the other hand fearing the dominance of a Taliban, just not enough to rise up and crush any chance of a taliban take over.

[rwilymz]

"The willingness of the local population to capitulate"

It *can* be done. The Chinese and Japanese coerced a relatively compliant indo-chinese population; the Turks ruled Greater Arabia for nigh on a millenium.

"the willingness of the invader to break them into subjugation."

This is the wicket. Not simply sticky, but nearly clogged full.

"OK, poor way of putting it."

It was fine. We are unwilling to "do what it takes" to occupy a foreign land. Particularly in prime time "we call it television".

We are waging war for arguably appropriate reasons [i.e., the same reasons as wars have ever been waged] but the wrong emphasis. which is to say: We care what others think of us.

You can't wage war if you give a flying rat's ass what other will think. War is national selfishness with guns. Even "moral wars" like WWII. We bombed Dresden into ruin? took out a few hundred K civvies while reducing a few factories to rubble? Oh well, c'est le guerre.

We bombed a barracks in Baghdad and damaged a hospital right next door? which lost electricity and a couple dozen sick/injured people got re-injured? OHMIGOD! HOW HORRIBLE!! WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES!!!!

"don't let it happen again" indeed. We're just brutes!!

No. The French are brutes because they do this every day in west Africa and don't give a shit what anyone else -- including their own "loyal opposition" -- thinks about it.

C'est le guerre. You don't like it do something about it. ...apart from whining and filing lawsuits.

Damn right they think we're weak. We are. We are the limpest "superpower" the history of the world has seen. And it's not limp enough for great wads of our own neophytes.

[Mary Contrary]

I am hesitant to continue a conversation with someone so deeply deluded as to believe that Saddam actually did have Weapons of Mass Destruction when we invaded. Also disturbing is your habit of peppering of your posts with a sort of pidgin baby talk. But I'll stick with it a little longer.

On Kosovo: Of course we stopped ethnic cleansing by Milosevic. I don't particularly care that it may have to be repeated (and I say may because I believe your Fantastic Powers of Prognistication, which predict a certainty of resumption of hostilities, may be somewhat overstated -- "Greeted as Liberators" comes to mind).

"Perpetual containment" worked pretty well in the case of Japan and Germany. I don't hear you crying about that. So, at your suggestion, I think I will take another victory lap.

But please. If the aim of NATO was not to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, then what was it?

(And I find it interesting that you accuse me of "semantic distinctions which mean nothing," when you are the one who objected to my statement "the military action you sneer at ... stopped a evil known as ethnic cleansing" by saying that "ethnic cleansing" was a part of war and couldn't be stopped. It was obvious that I was speaking of one particular instance, but you chose a "semantic distinction" which had no bearing on the original point. Projection, anyone?)

Next: The fact that you don't know the difference between a war and a military campaign is instructive. For the record, a war is waged to achieve a political objective. The military campaign is waged because the leader believes that is the best way to win the war. The military campaign can be, but is not necessarily, the means to that end. The Cold War, for instance, had many military campaigns, but in the end was not decided by one.

Third: I understand you believe it is heresy, but Clausewitz is not applicable to this age. Not any more than Sun Tzu, Machiavelli or a host of others. You said Clauswitz gave 3 factors for obtaining victory:

1] defeat the enemy's military
2] defeat the enemy's capacity to *make* war
3] defeat the enemy's *willingness to support* war

Ho Chi Minh only achieved the last, and yet he still won the war. How do you explain that, in light of Clauswitz?

Fourth: If Saddam had WMD when we invaded, how come Hans Blix didn't find them? Or Scott Ritter? or anybody else who looked? (And please don't hand me the tired, "He sent them to Syria" line. A man facing down the mightiest Army the world has ever seen and he gets rid of his most potent weapon? Please. And don't hand me "He knew it would be worse for him if he actually used them" He's dead. How much worse could it be?) And for the record: There is a difference between old Iraqi chemical shells and weapons of mass destruction.

Next: Also instructive that you don't know the difference between a military and an insurgency. I suspect Bush doesn't either, which explains many of the problems we face in this occupation.

Sixth: I stand by the statement... For the purposes of this conflict, IEDs are an inexhaustible resource. That does not mean they will never run out. That means this war will be over, one way or another, long before they run out.

Again: The enemy draws its support for the war from our very presence... They will continue to fight us as long as we are there. The only way you can misunderstand this statement is if you make a "semantic distinction" that the enemy is not the Iraqi insurgent, but all of Islam. This is, of course, not true, but it does fit in with the popular conservative sentiment that "A raghead is a raghead is a raghead."

But just as interesting are two last points: The first made to Willie, in which you seem to believe that the problem with this war is that we have not been brutal enough. Let's leave aside mere issues of humanitarianism (which does not sway the conservative mind anyway) and just speak to tactics. Once again, countries simply cannot wage war the same as they did hundreds of years ago. What do you think would happen to a country that cut off the right hand of every member of a conquered people? What would happen if Sherman's march to the sea had been televised?

Let's try denunciations, sanctions and political isolation. Now you may turn your nose up at such things, but luckily those in charge do not. As an example, part of the reason the North's blockade of the South was so effective is that Europe was loathe to do business with a slave state. Imagine if the moral scales had been tipped back by live pictures of burning farms and Southern refugees. England, among others who were itching to see the bifurcation of the US made permanent, would have had all the justifcation it needed to supply the South and keep the war going.

The last subpoint is what you did not answer. You quoted, at length, almost my entire post, except for one line.

"We are a thousand times more likely to see the creation of an Islamic theocracy aligned with Iran, than we ever are to see the creation of anything even remotely in America's interests."

I can only assume either you agree, or you have no rejoinder that would pass the laugh test. I'm anxious to see which is the case.

One last thing. You don't know me. You have know idea what I have, or have not considered.

[Wahoo Wiilie Sez]

"part of the reason the North's blockade of the South was so effective is that Europe was loathe to do business with a slave state."

The blockade did not work because of a lack of european trade. At least two blockade runners, from the Bahamas, were captured coming into the Cape Fear River after the city of Wilmington fell. That city alone had over 600 ships visit it's port during the war. What dried up European and northern supplies was the re-taking of the ports by Federal troops. The real point being that while England for example, 'officially' did not want to deal with a slave state. The greed of private citizens made up for it. Two ironclads, being built by the Laird company in England were siezed by the government for the reasons you suggest.

[Mary Contrary]

I did say it was "part" of the reason.

[Mary Contrary]

Consider: No one wants to build a ship, only to have it impounded by their Government.

Imagine if England had taken a neutral stance, let alone one favorable to the South.

Dozens of ships, sailing for America, running the blockade. It would be impossible for the Union to stop them all.

The result: The war drags on much longer. The South's prospects would have brightened considerably.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

"Imagine if England had (not?) taken a neutral stance, let alone one favorable to the South."

I assume you meant to add "not" to your statement. As you likely know, that was one of Lee's reasons for going into Pennsylvannia. To make England (or France) see the Confederacy as more than a region in rebellion. But yes, had another power been able to break the blockade by force of numbers the materiel would have been at hand to continue much longer. By the end, people like Lee and Cleburne had convinced the govt to give male slaves freedom for enlistment, so the manpower shortage would be solved. The two would have had to combine before Grant took leadership though to have worked. By the end there were too many fronts.

[Mary Contrary]

I see your point, but I would argue that a neutral stance in the end benefitted the North more than the South. The North had the advantage with the larger population and the manufacturing base. Given time and lack of outside involvement, Union victory was almost a certainty. The only advantage the South had was superior leadership. (Although I have always argued that that was no great feat... your average boy scout troupe leader could have out-generalled McClellan.)

[rwilymz]

"I am hesitant to continue a conversation with someone so deeply deluded as to believe that Saddam actually did have Weapons of Mass Destruction when we invaded."

Of course you are. Reality is not the forte of those who have a comfortable fantasy.

"I don't particularly care that it may have to be repeated"

You don't? Do you care that the Gulf War went into coda? [apparently you do, because that is the basis of a significant portion of your screed]

""Perpetual containment" worked pretty well in the case of Japan and Germany."

"Perpetual" = 6 years in the case of Germany; 7 years in the case of Japan. Besides, they were technically "occupation" actions. It has been 54 and counting in the case of Korea, and was 12 years in re Iraq before pulling the plug. It's been 8 in Kosovo, and 12 now for Bosnia.

"If the aim of NATO was not to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, then what was it?"

Read above. "Pre-emptive war for regime change". Serbian bullying of Serb-minority proto-revolutionaries was bad for European business. Invent a "sovereignty violation" and lay waste to the most convenient target. Been done before; will be done again [yes, by the "good guys"], it's SOP in foreign affairs. Not really a biggie, but those who believe the popular politics are advertising themselves as schmucks.

"Projection, anyone?"

Mirror, mirror.

"The Cold War, for instance, ..."

...is a very "instructive" use of equivocative language that annoys the snot out of people who actually work in the field. Sorry. Yes, we comprehend the slangy, idiolectic usage, but it is not accurate.

"Clausewitz is not applicable to this age."

I see. Where's the replacement?

"Ho Chi Minh only achieved the last"

And we only achieved the first in the SpanAm. We achieved #1 and #2 in the Civil war, though you could make the argument that Sherman was doing a bang-up job on #3 in parts of the south. You are making the first mistake of pseudo-analysis: mistaking theory for destiny.

"If Saddam had WMD when we invaded, how come Hans Blix didn't find them?"

Hans Blix found where the UN left them, and found the places empty.

Where'd they go? The place was under autonomous Iraqi control in the interegnum. Aliens, perhaps? Evaporation?

"And please don't hand me the tired, "He sent them to Syria" line."

It's only "tired" because you're tired of trying to counter it. It's one of the most plausible.

"A man facing down the mightiest Army the world has ever seen and he gets rid of his most potent weapon? Please."

Chemical weapons mustMustMUST be rigidly climate and humidity controlled, otherwise they very quickly become inert. You would do as well to blast a 4# sack of flour into the face of the enemy for all the good it would do.

But you knew this, and your petulant protests are childish attempts to deny the apparent.

Indeed, what happened when the paramilitaries used old chem stock for the explosive base for IEDs? Anyone "gassed"? Nope. Trace amounts of whetever-it-was. That's what happens.

The UN found these things between '92 and '98 -- really, it was in all the papers back when Hussein was the bad guy -- and stored them "improperly" for a number of years before they left. The chances that they'd be usable were slim.

"Potent weapon"? They'd be better paper weights.

"Also instructive that you don't know the difference between a military and an insurgency."

Alright, General, what is it? Put your second viewing of Private Ryan to use, here; tell me a-a-a-all about it.

"I stand by the statement... "

Manufactured munitions litter the place, yes. That is correct. But getting them requires cash. Or connections. Connections, they might have; cash, not so much. Depends on the *type* of connections they have. Shi'a militias are going to have a broader cash supply than the Ba'athists.

"Again: The enemy draws its support for the war from our very presence..."

Repeating an incorrect statment only makes you incorrect repeatedly. They drew support for their hesperophobic jihad before we were there, and -- from available evidence -- would draw ditto if we left. It's a function of the times.

"They will continue to fight us as long as we are there."

They will fight themselves more if given the choice of Balaam's Ass. They are easier to kill.

"The only way you can misunderstand this statement is if you make a "semantic distinction" that the enemy is not the Iraqi insurgent, but all of Islam."

For all practical purposes it is. "Panislamism" is the political philosophy that islam is destined to unite, conquer the world, and rule it. This is the theo-political philosophy non-westernized islamists talk to. To contend otherwise is to admit to failing or refusing to pay attention. ...which is the intellectual failing of a great many accomodationists in the West. "oh, no, they aren't all alike; some of them don't like each other."

Hell, ALL of them don't like each other, but if all things are equal, they'd prefer to kill us than themselves. Which is why it is in our best interests to make sure all things are not equal. We have armor; they don't. We live in hardened targets; they don't. We have ready supply of high-caliber weaponry and air superiority; they don't. If we stop stirring them up, they will find enough time to take us on again. In our soft targets.

They are the People's Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front meeting in the sewers of Pilate's palace in Life of Brian: same objective, rather kill each other than accomplish it.

"This is, of course, not true"

It's more true than you can allow yourself to acknowledge. Your worldview is built on the fallacy that "left alone" all people simply want to settle down, save for their kids' college funds, and retire to the coast. That is what WE want. What 90% of the world wants is veryVeryVERY different.

"the problem with this war is that we have not been brutal enough."

If you're going to have a war, you need to not fuck around and have a goddammed war. Pussy-footing is for pussies.

"Let's leave aside mere issues of humanitarianism..."

Good. I don't like fads. "Humanitarianism" is two generations old; human civilization is almost 400 generations old.

"Once again, countries simply cannot wage war the same as they did hundreds of years ago."

Yet nearly all of them do. How do you 'splain that one, Lucy?

Even France, which purports to being a civilized nation like us fights like a junkyard dog -- and proudly, at least unappologetically -- in west Africa today.

"What do you think would happen to a country that cut off the right hand of every member of a conquered people?"

It'd have a subjugated population that was incapable of effective rebellion. And if it didn't care about PR, it'd be a very successful "military campaign".

Or "war". I forget what your local definitions are running. Mine apparently don't count. I just work in it, and have for almost 30 years.

"What would happen if Sherman's march to the sea had been televised?"

Depends if Sherman gave a shit. Does he? Then it'd be disastrous. If he doesn't, then it'd be irrelevant.

The problem is: the US cares. You may not think it is a problem if you would wish the US to be some enlightened "lead by example" kinda group-hug harmonism.

I'm looking at it a different way, with historical referents, and I'm well aware that nations/kingdoms/empires which do not strenuously enforce its prerogative very quickly end up being dug up by anthropologists a thousand years hence.

"Let's try denunciations, sanctions and political isolation."

Sure. Why not. They've worked so well in NKorea and Cuba. They're working just as well in Iran.

Face it: the only way those work is if the rest of the world does exactly what we do; do they? Attach your brain; stop working off reflex. Of course they don't! Huge swaths of the world look to see what we do and they deliberately do the opposite. Including France, by the way. Since the middle of WWII, for all practical matters.

Can we **compel** the rest of the world into complying with us in re "denunciations, sanctions and political isolation"? Dunno; howzit been going with Cuba? NKorea? Iran? We can't even get our own nation to comprehend NKorean nuclear blackmail.

Do you even listen to yourself?

"As an example, part of the reason the North's blockade of the South was so effective is that Europe was loathe to do business with a slave state."

It was? Seriously? At the same time it was running colonies in east Africa? India? South Africa?

Care to restate?

"I can only assume either you agree, or you have no rejoinder that would pass the laugh test."

No; I agree. There's 5,000 years of tyranny to outlive. I believe I mentioned this. They certainly aren't going to do it in the course of a double-wide presidential term.

But then ... as I said ... the assertion that we are there to give them democracy was constructed for the focus group. It was [and is] political shinola, and to the degree that people buy it, they are fools.

"You don't know me. You have know idea what I have, or have not considered."

I know what you say; and if what you say is anywhere near an accurate reflection of what you have considered, then I feel safe in concluding that you haven't consdered much that didn't begin and end with your confortable fantasies.

I don't have the luxury of indulging my feelings or opinions in matters of foreign policy and wars. I have to work off what I see in front of me. And what I see in front of me now is not seriously distinguishable from what I saw between early '93 and early '01. Hussein had chemical weapons; they were stored by the UN; they disappeared.

Speaking of the sniff test: do you think Hussein destroyed, in four years of being left alone, what he had spent the prior 6 years hiding from the narcs?

Seriously?

Do you have teenagers?

[Mary Contrary]

There's really not much point in continuing this. You clearly live on Tau Ceti. Nothing else can properly explain your beliefs (which follow here, in no particular order):

1. Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he didn't use, no one could find, and he somehow spirited out of the country with no person, organization or satellite seeing it.

2. There is no difference between a soldier and an insurgent.

3. This page --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War -- does not exist. Or maybe it does, but only as a figment of our collective imagination. But at any rate, its views are nothing stacked against your vast knowledge of war, gleaned from hundreds of hours of playing Avalon Hill games.

4. Saudi Arabia would much rather destroy us than Al Qaeda.

5. If you can't argue with another's points, calling him a "weenie" will suffice.

6. The nature of war has not changed in 500 years.

7. Expressions of support for the US after 9/11 lasted 24 hours.

8. The correct designation for Marine is "Jarhead."

9. The rest of the world can go hang. (Unless, of course, we upset our allies about our prosecution of the war in Bosnia, in which case, the feelings of the world are paramount)

10. The Lebanese militia continues to wage war on America today.

11. Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz would make great generals today. (Once they grasped the concepts of air power, tanks, satellite technology, Tomahawk missiles, submarines, drone fighters, anti-aircraft weapons, instantaneous command and control over hundreds of miles, television, radio, the internet, and a thousand other things I haven't thought of in the seven seconds it took me to type this. Yeah, after that it would be a snap.)

12. One can spew a lot of drivel in lieu of actually making sense. (And its corollary: increasing the amount of words typed lends more credence to your argument)

13. America is "the limpest 'superpower' the history of the world has seen."

14. We have not had troops in Germany for 60 years.

15. The insurgency in Iraq and the religion of Islam is the same thing.

16. War is all hell and we should not give the slightest damn about "collateral damage." (Unless, of course, we bomb a Chinese embassy, in which case, that is proof that a war was prosecuted incompetently)

17. America could and should, cut off the right hand of everyone in Iraq and simply tough out the consequences. Or there would be no consequences. Or something.

18. Sanctions in North Korea and Cuba have been ineffective.

19. NATO went to war in the former Yugoslavia because a coterie of businessmen saw that it would be good for their bottom line, and goaded the organization into it.

20. Being a night janitor at the Pentagon is the same as "work[ing] in the field."

Please. For the love of God. In your next post, string together a minimum of five words that demonstrate that you call this reality home.

Otherwise, what's the point?

[Fred Belot]

Mary nowinker, I admire your persistence, but deplore your twisting of facts and ideas into completely unrecognizable blobs and overstating every weakly made case that comes before you.

"Once again, countries simply cannot wage war the same as they did hundreds of years ago. What do you think would happen to a country that cut off the right hand of every member of a conquered people? What would happen if Sherman's march to the sea had been televised?"

This is just a small piece of your recent minced pie above, but may serve as an example. Sherman went into Georgia not hundreds of years ago but only about 143 years ago. But only about 62 years ago we, with other nations, savagely beat two formidable enemy countries into total submission my destroying their military and industrial forces, which included direct attacks upon and massive loses of their civilian population.

These blows against the enemy were widely shown here at home not on television but in movie theaters, which at the time were ubiquitous. Our population by a wide margin not only did not object to these actions, they cheered them. I must ask you now, was our way of fighting to win that war a good thing overall? If you take more than a few words to answer this simple question, I will conclude that you are not a serious opponent. I will not read pages of persiflage and ifs-ands-and-buts or more simply BS. How about an honest and concise answer?

[Mary Contrary]

Gladly.

First. I am not this nowinkie person. While I had heard of Riehl World View, I had not really ever visited here seriously before last Tuesday, when as I said, I followed a Memeorandum link here.

But more to your point. Those old newsreal shows were not real-time, and they did not have nearly the pervasiveness of present day TV. But really those are just quibbles. There are two reasons that is a different situation.

1. The nature of the war was different. There was no doubt that we had been attacked in Pearl Harbor, and no doubt as to who did the attacking. We were able to respond to them in a determined way, since they were a real threat. And just as importantly, leadership took it seriously. They planned for it, prepared the country for it and treated it like a real war. They didn't tell us the best way to beat the Germans was by going shopping. We had a draft, people bought war bonds, and they sacrificed time, money and some made the ultimate sacrifice. A country mobilized for war will take a bit (or even a lot) of bad news if the cause is just and true.

2. The nature of the country is different. The old newsreels were mainly propaganda meant to aid the country in winning the war. News organizations simply wont do that sort of thing anymore. For one thing, there are too many of them and people can get the truth from any number of sources... Most people no longer rely on only one. But just as importantly, since Watergate, people have gotten much more cynical about the things their government tells them. Even if you tried to spoonfeed people outright propaganda, they probably would reject it.

That's probably more words than you were looking for, but concisely, the answer is: The wars we fight today are different, and the country we fight them for is different. That's the world we live in today, and there's no going back.

[Fred Belot]

I'm more convinced than ever that you are none other than nowinkie. She loads up the screen with verbiage but never answers a simple question. The question was:

[Fred Belot]

Sorry, the question was:

"I must ask you now, was our way of fighting to win that war a good thing overall?"

[Fred Belot]

I did NOT ask, are wars different today? I did NOT ask, today do we get information from more sources than one? I did NOT ask, if we tried to spoon feed people with propaganda would they reject it? I did NOT ask, are things different after Watergate? I did NOT ask, did you follow the Memorandum link here? I did NOT ask, is there a way to go back? I didn't ask about any of those straw dowgs of yours. Nowinkie was here!