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
You took 11 lines to ask the question, I took 15 to answer it. Hardly loading up the screen. But let me answer.
Sure, why not. I could have done without the terror bombing of Dresden, and I think the Bomb was dropped more out of curiousity to see what would happen than out of military necessity.
But other than that, sure. With the obvious caveat that fighting a war is never good.
Posted by: Mary Contrary | Sunday, October 07, 2007 at 12:19 PM
"Sure, why not. I could have done without the terror bombing of Dresden, and I think the Bomb was dropped more out of curiousity to see what would happen than out of military necessity.
But other than that, sure. With the obvious caveat that fighting a war is never good."
The question again was: "I must ask you now, was our way of fighting to win that war a good thing overall?"
Yes without Dresden, and A-bombs? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? Is that in your caveat? Yes, without Monte Casino? Is that in there too? But you can't take them and a thousand other little incidents out. WWII was what it was. You can't edit it. It was fought, which you don't seem to approve of. So your answer is yes and no, a very winkielarian answer still. Now how about an answer?
Posted by: Fred Belot | Sunday, October 07, 2007 at 03:21 PM
I just gave you one. You just don't like it.
The answer to your question is yes, with caveats. I liked September, but we didn't get enough rain. I don't like rice, unless you add gravy. I like Shakespeare, but I didn't like The Tempest.
Most sane people operate this way.
You don't like the answer because you were trying to maneuver me into a corner. But just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Wait, I'm talking to conservatives... Never mind.
Posted by: Mary Contrary | Sunday, October 07, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Gee Mary, I was enjoying our discussion of the ACW until someone injected partisan BS into the mix. Oh and Fred B. Mary is waaaay too articulate and can at least make a point to be nowinkie. Moving on C-YA
Posted by: Wahoo Willie Sez | Sunday, October 07, 2007 at 06:48 PM
Say, Fred, do you think Progressives are good for the country overall?
Why yes, yes I do. I have of course a few caveats. The P's are people who use emotions in place of logic when taking a position. They will get a woman or small child with a sob story, place them in front of the media, and try to build a case for new and damaging legislation. They insist on continuing the use of using affirmative action when it is racial discrimination under another name. In fact the names for every one of their policies are phrased to disguise what they really are. They have turned great universities into propaganda mills and speech censorship havens.
They are opposed to free trade and prefer commercial isolationism. Their economics are basically socialistic. Their views on the security of the country are naive and pacifistic and if followed will leave us all in deep and dangerous waters. They claim to favor privacy but oppose classification of any kind of military intelligence and information. In fact they will distribute such classified material in the media without a qualm. No privacy for the president and his military advisers.
They want the government to be in charge of health. But if one looks at public education, which governments are in charge of, the Progressives and their allies the unions are running a system that has failed to deliver education to those who need it most to advance in life. One can point to almost any discretionary government spending and see failure or at best a waste of funds. So much for governments' abilities to manage things.
The Ps' life blood is taxes. They take from Peter and give to Paul. That is because there are more Pauls than Peters and that is how they get majorities to vote them into office.
There you have it. My answer is yes, with a few caveats expressed above, and many more not expressed.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Tuesday, October 09, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Fair enough Fred. You've told us what you don't like about Progressives. But you also said Progressives are a force for good overall.
So now the question is, what do you like about Progressives?
As you said, "How about an honest and concise answer?"
Posted by: Mary Contrary | Tuesday, October 09, 2007 at 04:41 PM
As I suspected. See the difference between us. When I say I support our actions in world war 2 with some exceptions, I'm telling the truth. When you, Fred, say you think liberals are mostly a force for good with a few exceptions, you're lying.
You lie, we tell the truth. And that pretty much sums up the difference between liberals and conservatives as well.
Posted by: Mary Contrary | Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 04:38 PM