I SUPPORT George W. Bush in this election. I dislike his domestic policies, but I believe he's the right man to con tinue the War on Terror. No combination of other issues matters as much as America's security.
Tomorrow, we, the people, will decide who's going to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years. Tempers are short. Tensions are high. The race is tight. And the election campaign has been the most vicious and dishonest — on both sides — in my lifetime. We need to get over it.
I have my preferred candidate. I have my vote. I have my strong convictions. But whoever the American people choose on Election Day will be my president. And he needs to be our president.
Once the people have spoken through the ballot, we need to accept their judgment and get back to being Americans together. The times are perilous and likely to grow even more dangerous, no matter who is elected. We need to pull together again, as we did after 9/11. God knows, our enemies are pulling together.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
11/01/2004 10:23:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nor is the damage done to democracy by involving lawyers in our elections limited to our own soil. We hope to spread democracy abroad â donât any of the hacks in either party stop to think?
Smell the coffee, Ralphie: one party DISAGREES about us spreading democracy abroad...
#2
Well frankly Ralph boy, I can never respect a man who betrayed his county in time of war period.....
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
11/01/2004 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ralph's dead on. Something changed for the worse in this country during the last four years, and for my money that change occurred in the four days after the 2000 election. It was Al Gore who broke precedent and began arguing-- shamefully, in my view-- that the elction had been "stolen."
Nixon had a far stronger grievance in 1960, when Cook County Illinois was, in best Mayor Daley fashion, tipped to JFK. Also, Nixon lost Texas by only 9,000 votes, and there was certainly significant voter fraud there as well. Yet Nixon refused his supporters' pleas to challenge the election results in court because he knew that to do so would be to destroy the gentleman's rule of respecting the ballot results that underlines this nation's precious political stability. Nixon recognized that the stakes were far, far greater than the ambitions of one man, and even someone as devious, ambitious and emotionally disturbed as Nixon could grasp this.
The blame rests with Gore. Shame on that fool. The only way to get back to where we were would be for both Kerry and Bush to do the right thing and agree--quietly, as gentlemen concerned about the fate of our democracy-- not to challenge the results tomorrow. Ralph Peters is on the right track here.
#4
Lex, I agree with you. But help! I also agree with Ptah.
I think Ralph is spot on here, but I see a disconnect that I don't know how to deal with - should Kerry win. If one side is committed to undermining democracy through the use of lawyers, thug tactics and subverting our basic rights by turning over my vote to the unelected members of the UN - then how can I support Kerry?
Likewise there is another disconnect in Ralph's article here. We says, "we can't allow lawyers to do this" but...what exactly...are we supposed to do about it???????
The Dem's have made clear that they plan to pursue the legal maneuver around the votes. What am I, as an idividual supposed to do to stop them, if indeed that is what they do? Just throw my support to Kerry? Yeah...that'll show them not to do that next time.
I want to do what Ralp is proposing - but if the Dem's win through the courts...then Peter's is telling me not to allow it in one breath...and then telling me to allow it in the other.
Punish the Democratic Party by supporting non-Democrats in elections in which you donât have a strong preference for a candidate. (Iâd expect those unhappy with Republican election tactics to do the same.)
Accept whoever is declared winner as your president. If there is a clear mandate from the people then voter fraud wonât change the result. If there is no clear mandate then preserving democracy is more important than which man becomes president. (Both sides have claimed fraud and voter disenfranchisement. Neither side is going to see the issue from the otherâs perspective.)
Let go of the past and start with a clean slate. When it is best for the US to show a united front then back the President. If you disagree with the Presidentâs policy then criticize the policy and not the man.
For the future, support laws to clean up issues that have led to claims of voter fraud.
#6
What A5032 said. Support the nation's president.
Express scorn for all attempts to circumvent the democratic electoral process with lawsuits.
If the lawsuits drag on and through the legitimacy of the election results into jeopardy, then it's really time for a third party, one dedicated to national unity in the war effort.
#7
Why limit it to national unity around the war effort? Why not just national unity? Like A5032 said, preserving democracy is more important than who become President, and would be a better rallying cry for national unity than one built around the War on Terror.
#8
Why limit it to national unity around the war effort? Why not just national unity?
OK, add national unity around the war and preserving our democracy. But let's not pretend that there are not serious and valid differences over the proper role of religion in American life or any of a dozen other issues people consider vital. For ex my views on domestic issues probably have far less in common with those of ma fellow Rantburgers than with John Kerry.
My point is to bring us back to the foreign-policy bipartisanship that characterized the last long twilight struggle this nation fought against a foreign enemy. That was the era when Dems were so solid on national security that a Republican presidential candidate who likely won the vote in reality but lost the election due to fraud could graciously accept the ballot results without legal challenge or fear that our national security would be compromised.
#10
well....I'm pulling a straight republican ticket for the first time in my life. I haven't even bothered to read up on the candidates...
I hear what you are saying Lex and LH...and I'll do my best to support Kerry if he wins. But if the Dems win by cheating or with lawyers - I believe that blind loyalty, for the sake of unity, is a mistake.
Hitler won an election. Throwing support behind him was not useful to the German people. And no, I'm not calling J Kerry Hitler - just pointing out that appeasement is never a useful reward to limit bad behavior.
#11
I'm convinced that the two party system is the best. Get into one and work to get 'it' close to you. A third party is lame. This is a bipolar world.
I'm concerned about Kerrys willingness to do the wrong thing. and I'm worried about the election night rukus that will be hyped by CBS et all to ramp up dissent. But if the results go wrong, Ill hang tough. No Canada for me and no childish behavior like I've seen the last four years.
#12
If Kerry/McAwful's lawyers challenge the results and impair our democracy's prestige and with it the president's effectiveness in the war, I will renounce the Democratic Party for good.
#13
If the Dems go the lawyer route, then they MUST be blamed for putting the country's democracy at risk in order to further their own desire for power. The party, not the man, must be blamed. Likewise, the party must be blamed for the mistakes of the man (Kerry) during his administration. They will be legion and the press will turn on him like a rabid dog. But the press will try to blame the man. NO! It is the party who selected the man and it is the pary that demonstrated their willingness to put this great country at risk in order to gain power. Therefore, it is the party that must pay. If elected Kerry will be my president, though I will disagree with virtually everything he stands for. I will not be one who furthers to dissolution of America because I disagree with the results of an election. Unlike the opposition, I will act like an adult regardless of the outcome. (OK, if Bush wins big, I will point and laugh at some of the Kerry people here in the SF Bay area, but not for long.)
Posted by: remote man ||
11/01/2004 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I think one can act like an adult and not support John Kerry or his actions. There is a difference between calling him Hitler or not standing behind him as he works to provide the same fate for the Iraqi's that he did for the South Vietnamese - massive genocide and betrayl.
While I will never stoop to the name calling; or celebrate lies just because they hurt the Dems; or work to undermine any of the good that he may do, I will NEVER lend my good name to the support of John Kerry. But I will hold my tounge and resist the urge to say "what did you expect when you were stupid enough to elect a guy who produced no viable legislation after being in the Senate for 20 years AND was deemed unfit for command by everyone he served with, except one man?" Talk about a major DUH when they suddenly discover this man can't lead.
Hopefully - I will, instead, just be able to act all nicey nice and concillatory toward my ABB friends and relatives, offering to drive them down to get their perscriptions of prozac and lithium filled.
#15
If the results are really close on Tuesday even if Bush and Kerry try to call off the dogs some of the dogs will go forward on their own. But if either candidte wins by a significant margin I hope they hold out the olive branch to the other side. The devisive politics in this country need to stop or the nation will tear itself apart
#16
When you have lived in California as long as I have you come to understand a few things about the Democratic Party (as well as their constituency): 1) They are corrupt, immature liars 2) They do not, I repeat DO NOT believe in the constitution 3) They actually are Marxists, gun grabbers, and internationalists who look with contempt upon our nation and its history 4) They really do hate conservatives with a passion and will suppress, kill, and/or imprison them where opportunity permits. That is the hard, cold reality of the California Democratic Party people.... a reality that John F. Kerry will bring to even the remotest corner of America.
President Kerry? I'll never recognize it. National unity with the Democrats? You can forget that. If he wins every effort should be made to make his life a living hell in every way possible.
Ten reasons I'm not voting for you, Mr. George W. Bush.
10. Do you really think it's a good idea to be Hitler, George? Hitler killed millions of people and his approval ratings are in the toilet. Why can't you be somebody people like? Regis, maybe, or the Prophet Mohammed. Anybody but Hitler! Being Hitler = BAD IDEA.
9. Two words: You. Are. Dumb.
8. When Karl Rove used the remote-control device implanted in your upper back to force you to murder Iraqi babies and American soldiers for oil and/or no reason because Saddam was mean to your dad, plus what about the WMDs you lost after you lied about them even being there in the first place, and then Rove tried to make everybody think your Thanksgiving turkey wasn't plastic by planting fake documents about your military service and forcing Dan Rather to say "Sorry, I guess" on national TV, did you really think we wouldn't figure it out?
7. People might make fun of me. Maybe you're used to it by now, but I'm not.
6. I mean, black hoods? Fa-shion dis-a-a-a-ster. Wasn't Abu Ghraib dreary enough already? (More like Abu Drab!) I would have started a riot--a laugh riot. While pointing at you!
5. How dare you taunt a dying Christopher Reeve with a big brown bottle of stem cells? The man was on his deathbed, you sick monster. Why did you have to hold the spoon right in front of his lips? "C'mon, Chrissy, it's right here. You can do it, bwah! Just another coupla inches. Oooh, yer close. Close!" Shame on you, Dubya.
4. I can't really think of anything for item No. 4, and for that I blame you. (Also the Jews.)
3. Where's Osama? C'mon, Shrub, we all know you've got him in some secret Ashcroft prison and he's running around loose in the world, plus also besides which everybody just saw him live on tape giving the dramatic reading of "Fahrenheit 9/11" that the Halliburton PR department wrote for him to swing the election your way. Well???
2. The Internet.
1. I can no longer afford the premiums on my falling-sky insurance. Adios, chimp!
Mr. Treacher writes at JimTreacher.com. Editor's note: This is a satire of the Angry Left. Please do not take it seriously.
Posted by: tipper ||
11/01/2004 9:51:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That "editor's note" has been added since last night. Poor WSJ! I figure they tried to add a little humor to their coverage, and their stuffed shirt readers didn't get the joke.
Treacher wrote that on Oct. 25, and it's been bouncing around the blogosphere ever since. I assume the WSJ paid him for it. He's an inspiration to bloggers everywhere: write some crap, get the MSM to pick it up, get paid. Ahhhh...
#2
Sadly, I actually hear these arguments from my ABB "friends". Well.. I haven't hear the Fashion Disaster argument. Maybe I just don't hang with the right people.
Al-Jazeera aired only four minutes of Osama bin Laden's videotape released last week, leaving the media to guess about what the remaining 14 minutes might contain. An anonymous source sent me what purports to be a transcript of the rest of the tape. I cannot vouch for its authenticity, but it is just what I would have said if I were Osama bin Laden.
Here is what Osama bin Laden supposedly said:
"People of America, it does not matter whom you choose as president. Islam will prevail. We do not have to fight you; we merely have to let you destroy yourselves. The Great Satan is a monster that devours its children.
"Slanderers claim that I represent an authoritarian form of Islam. But what has the freedom of the modern world done to your Christianity? Religion has died in Europe. You have done even worse. Like everything in the Greater America of globalization, you have turned religion into a consumer goods. Americans choose among 139 major brands of Christianity. Your old churches close for lack of worshippers, and you build new churches in shopping malls where religion is sold along with sausages.
"You have made a modern world, and you brand us as relics of a tenebrous past. You say that we are violent, but you have raised your children in a nightmare of violence unlike anything the world has seen before. By the time an American child reaches the age of 18, he will have seen on television 40,000 murders and 200,000 other acts of violence.
"Slanderers in your midst say that Islam oppresses women. Islam protects the modesty of women with purdah and the veil. You turn your women into whores. You cannot turn on your television without hearing a vulgar mention of sex every three minutes.
"Not only do your children incessantly observe violence and sex, but you give them the means to play at it. The most popular computer game for American children, called Grand Theft Auto, encourages the player to buy relations with a prostitute and afterward beat her to death.
"Slanderers in your midst claim that Islam promotes violence against women. Your worship of the flesh provokes women to commit violence against themselves. At American universities, two out of five female students starve themselves or vomit up their food in a perverse attempt to fit the criteria for sexual attractiveness established by your fashion industry.
"Your evil will destroy your seed. It is not merely the fatherless and despised, the poor and outcast, who wither and perish in the contaminated soil of America, but the coddled offspring of your prosperous elites. You have given your young people freedom, but it has only brought them misery. You have depraved them with your false promise of freedoms and left them with nothing but terror of the world, to the point that one in six of your university students suffers a mental illness.
"People of America, your leaders falsely tell you that jihadis love death rather than life. It is true that life to us means more than the material existence on this Earth, but also life everlasting - but did not your prophets tell you the same thing? If we hate life, why do we have more children than you? The population of the Arab world doubled during the 20 years between 1978 and 1998, and between 1998 and 2010 will have grown by yet another third.
"It is you, not us, who foster a culture of death. Where in the Muslim world can you find a form of music such as 'death metal', which revels in the putrefaction of human flesh? Groups with names like Cannibal Corpse have sold scores of millions of records. This, O Americans, is the blessing progress which you propose in your benevolence to bestow upon Muslim youth? It would be better to learn from us how to cut a flute from a reed.
"One candidate tells you that he will enlist foreign allies in your crusade against us. These supposed allies are the ones who love death. In half a century the number of Europeans will fall by 50 million, because the Europeans no longer love life enough to bring new life into this world. Three hundred and twenty years ago a Muslim army stood before the gates of Vienna, and Europe barely escaped conversion to the true faith at swordpoint. During the next half-century Muslims will wander into Europe and replenish the half-empty towns with people, and the sound of children's voices once again will be heard - but in Arabic.
"Because they hate life, your supposed allies are cowards. Half a millennium ago the Spanish empire drove Islam from its territory; this year a few bombs at a railway station panicked the pathetic remnants of Spain into retreat from Iraq. You are fools to count on them. Even the Zionist Bernard Lewis admits that Islam will prevail in Europe before the end of this century.
"People of America, your soldiers are brave but your leaders are fools. You tremble at the loss of a thousand lives in Iraq. Perhaps with another thousand, and a thousand more, you will establish the peace of the cemetery in the cities of the Mesopotamian plain for another month or another year. We do not think in terms of next month, or next year. We look with hope and resolution toward the victory of our children's children, who will dominate Europe. Their children's children will dominate America.
"Abandon the false hope of freedom and submit to Allah. You cannot go back to the traditional life of your forefathers, because the monster of globalization has plowed it under. Not an American in 20 could find his way back to the village of his great-grandfather. You cannot go forward, because your souls are too weak to find a way through the pitfalls of the modern world. Like the Europeans, you too will become weary of life, weary of raising children, weary of your mastery - and the world will belong to us.
"Have a nice day."
Posted by: tipper ||
11/01/2004 9:19:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The whole time I was watching the Binny and Ninny videos I was waiting for the tag line: âIâm John Kerry and I approve of this message.â They both sounded like the talking points on the left or at least the storyline for F-911.
One candidate tells you that he will enlist foreign allies in your crusade against us. These supposed allies are the ones who love death. In half a century the number of Europeans will fall by 50 million, because the Europeans no longer love life enough to bring new life into this world.Binny has his demographics right here about Europe. Three hundred and twenty years ago a Muslim army stood before the gates of Vienna, and Europe barely escaped conversion to the true faith at swordpoint. During the next half-century Muslims will wander into Europe and replenish the half-empty towns with people, and the sound of childrenâs voices once again will be heard - but in Arabic. Binny must have been reading Rantburg. RB was not quite as flowery as Binny, I will have to admit that he is on the mark with the demographics.
"Because they hate life, your supposed allies are cowards. Half a millennium ago the Spanish empire drove Islam from its territory; this year a few bombs at a railway station panicked the pathetic remnants of Spain into retreat from Iraq. You are fools to count on them. Grudgingly, I will admit Binny is right about that one, too. Only thing is that the US will not roll over and play dhimmi roadkill like Spain. Even the Zionist Bernard Lewis admits that Islam will prevail in Europe before the end of this century.
"People of America, your soldiers are brave but your leaders are fools. You tremble at the loss of a thousand lives in Iraq. Perhaps with another thousand, and a thousand more, you will establish the peace of the cemetery in the cities of the Mesopotamian plain for another month or another year. We do not think in terms of next month, or next year. We look with hope and resolution toward the victory of our childrenâs children, who will dominate Europe. Their childrenâs children will dominate America.The only fly in the ointment is that the US is not like Europe.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/01/2004 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Woops, fisking based upon speculation....Been too much into engineering design today....oh, well, it was fun. Heh heh
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/01/2004 21:40 Comments ||
Top||
In his pre-election message, Osama bin Laden did his best to persuade the American people to cast their ballots for John Kerry. But the 9/11 mastermind's bizarre video may have exactly the opposite affect. In fact, says political guru Dick Morris in his New York Post column, bin Laden's tape "should seal this election for Bush." "Combined with recent statements by Putin and from officials in the Arafat compound," Morris says, "the terrorist's intervention in our election should make one point quite clear: The terrorists are afraid of Bush and would much rather see him out of office." Even the increasing activity by Iraqi insurgents, he warns, is a bid to elect Kerry: "Every day's escalation of violence in Iraq sends the same message. These goons are not trying to influence the Iraqi elections in January. They want to impact the U.S. elections tomorrow. They want Bush out."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/01/2004 2:16:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Only if the lefty media allows it to be seen...they are not broadcasting the information.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404
Posted by: jawa ||
11/01/2004 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
How can any jewish american with his head on straight vote for Kerry? I recognize their fear and loathing of the Christian Right, but really, to the extent any jewish person is vitally concerned about the survival of Israel, how could they vote for the preferred candidate of the mullahs, ObL and Arafart?
This smells of 1972. I cannot see Bush getting less than 40% of the jewish vote. Which means he easily wins Florida and Pennsylvania. Game over.
#3
"to the extent any jewish person is vitally concerned about the survival of Israel"
I don't know how fundamental Israel is to Jews not living there. Maybe somebody can enlighten me. But in Barbara Tuchman's Bible and Sword (a history of the Balfour Declaration), she points out that when Lord Shaftesbury urged the restoration of the Jews to their ancient lands he didn't have the support of most Jews: the wealthy were trying to blend in and the poor were trying to lie low. Returning to Israel wasn't high on their lists of chores for the day.
Presumably the hopes and worries are a little different today. But . . . do non-Jews not quite understand what the priority of Israel is
among the diaspora? I know attitudes form a spectrum, and polling can't quite be accurate: there's a difference between what you think you ought to believe/do and what you're willing to sacrifice for.
Posted by: James ||
11/01/2004 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
November 1, 2004: Iyad Allawi, Iraq's interim Prime Minister, spent the weekend warning Sunni Arab leaders, especially those in Fallujah and Ramadi, to crack down on the political, religious and criminal gangs that operate in their territory. But many of the Sunni Arab tribal and religious leaders would rather see the Sunni Arab minority back in control of the country, either as a secular dictatorship, or a religious one. While the Sunni Arab minority are not willing to accept the authority of the democratic Iraqi government, they are not united on which Sunni Arab faction would run things. The only thing that unites the Sunnis is their use of terror against Iraqis, and foreigners, that they consider enemies. In the last two weeks, government operations in Sunni Arab areas has led to over 3,000 arrests. Among those picked up were nearly 200 foreigners.
That's interesting, I'd like to see a breakdown on nationalities.
As a result, the ever more desperate Sunni Arabs have increased their use of terror against government officials and foreigners. But this sort of thing is futile, only looking impressive in the international Arab media, which cheers on the Iraqi Sunnis as if they were freedom fighters, not a bunch of murderous thugs trying to bring back tyranny. Allawi doesn't want to go to war with the Sunni Arabs, but it looks like he will have no choice. No one in the Sunni Arab community can control the Sunni gunmen and terrorists. These thugs have perpetrated a bloody terror campaign against the Iraqi people that won't end until the Sunni Arab areas are swept clean of the gangs. But that will mean a lot of bombs and street fighting. Allawi also knows it will mean a lot of dead Sunnis, and angry kinsmen. Allawi would prefer to avoid long term problems with the Sunnis, but the Sunnis don't seem to care.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/01/2004 10:39:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"No! No! The Fuhrer is not dead! He is in hiding, and will come back if we can prove ourselves worthy of him."
#7
See this or Google Okinawa suicide and read any of the 75,000 entries.
Thus ended the campaign to capture Okinawa, which now became a giant air and naval base destined to play a major role in the planned invasion of Japan. British observers spoke of the Battle for Okinawa as "... the most audacious and complex enterprise ... yet undertaken by the American Amphibious Forces... more ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets" than any other operation in the Pacific. But not without a severe price for both sides. Thirty-four allied ships and craft of all types had been sunk, mostly by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged. The fleet had lost 763 aircraft. Over 4,900 sailors and 3,443 Marines were killed or missing in action and 4,824 Sailors and 16,017 Marines were wounded, making this the naval services' most costly campaign of World War II. Army casualties were 7,613 killed or missing and 31,807 wounded or injured. There were also more than 26,000 non-battle casualties. Japanese losses were enormous: 107,539 killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; 10,755 captured or surrendered. On both sides, nearly 170,000 died, over half were civilians. The Japanese lost 7,830 aircraft and 16 combat ships.
The decision to use the atomic bombs without a demonstration was sealed by the suicidal resistance at Okinawa.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/01/2004 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Technology is a little better now than it was at Okinawa. The only reason the US takes casualties is its desire to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage. In cases like Fallujah, the innocents have by and large left the area. Anyone left is fair game and hunting season is about to commence. Fallujah is going to wind up on the receiving end of SPOOKY (AC-130U) and JDAM. B-52Hs can circle above the range of shoulder launched surface to air missiles and put 750 pound bombs on the GPS coordinates of any target pretty much on demand. The Marine on the ground radios the coordinates to the Buff and the radar nav transmits them to the selected bomb, the doors open and another jihadi meets his raisins. There is no need to manually dig these animals out of fortified positions. We just vaporize them along with their fortifications.
#9
Another huge difference between the current situation in Iraq and Okinawa is the presence of Iraqi troops who are on our side. There's no parallel for that anywhere in our WW II experience with Japan.
#10
Not sure I see the Okinawa similarities. It should not be that bloody for us, we don't get a base there, and the nukes are for the mullahs in Iran who are not Sunnis and have already seen our nuke demonstrations.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/01/2004 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The terrorists and their sunni cohorts want to make Fallujah the bloodiest operation for the Coalition because they figure that we will not have the stomach for casualties. They see our painstaking care with trying to avoid civilian casualties as a weakness to be exploited. We have sealed off Fallujah, so we have more control over civilians now, except for the morons who either sympathize with the terrorists or are trying to hang on to their hovels. Taking out the terrorists in Fallujah is a matter of our and Allawi's will.
Okinawa was the same thing. The japanese saw an opportunity to inflict great casualties on the fleet (1500 ships) and with the land forces. The allied forces landed on Love-day (April 1, 1945) with now opposition. Dad was on the landings. He said that it was eerie. It took about 3 1/2 days to split the island in two, with only token opposition. Then the north half of the island was taken. The main opposition was in the south half and was well dug in and fortified. It was an extremely costly operation to destroy the dug-in Japanese forces, and it took 3 months.
After the operation was over, they started staging equipment for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu. Dad said that he never saw so much equipment. Miles of rows and rows of amphibs, tanks, artillery, etc. getting ready for the invasion. When the bomb was dropped, there were alot of soldiers and marines who got a new lease on life and realized that they would not have to invade Japan.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/01/2004 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
From GlobalSecurity.org
Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; <I>10,755 captured or surrendered
Check the captured or surrendered number and compare to Iwo or Saipan. It's still low but it was more than the US had captured in the entire Pacific Campaign combined. The average Imperial soldat was starting to see the end.
#13
To win they don't have top kill a lot of GI's just drive them out before a functioning viable democracy is established. From the looks of the election they have come pretty close. Had they tried harder over the last month with lots of suicide attacks, they could have done it. We're fortuante they're stupid.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/01/2004 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Mrs. Davis I think you hit the nail on the head! We need to Nuke Fullujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit. For those anti-nuke folks, I remind you that they will be just as dead as if we bombed or shot them. This way is just more efficient and wont cost the any ally lives. Also I can think of no better place to use a nuke than in the rocky desert of Iraq.
The rest of the world would get it underwear bunched up if we went nuclear. There would be little domestic support for a nuclear option. Agreed the end result is pretty much the same as with conventional bombs.
After the softening up gets done in Fallujah, there shouldn't be that many miltants terrorists left. Agreed that anyone left is a terrorist or moron (candidate for the Darwin Award). Good and thorough ass-kickings have a way of sorting things out.
#18
After the softening up gets done in Fallujah, there shouldn't be that many miltants terrorists left.
True and once we've cleaned out Fallujah the command structure that's organizing them should be pretty well crippled. When that happens the ones crossing the border into Iraq become a lot less dangerous.
#19
The Marine on the ground radios the coordinates to the Buff
I thought they just "lased" the site with a laser designator from a considerable distance. But I guess for GPS guided munitions that makes no sense.
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/01/2004 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I am not familiar with the military equipment, but there are GPS units with lasers that you aim at an object. The laser light comes back with a distance. If you have an azimuth (compass direction) then you have a bearing and distance from your GPS unit. Send up those coordinates and you have designated your JDAM target. Better not screw it up or it will come down on you.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/01/2004 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
The Hamas political - not military - silence is no more than nervous waiting for medical news from Paris. Hamas representatives publicly wish the Chairman good health and a speedy recovery, but nobody denies Hamas had long awaited just this situation. Even before Yasser Arafat's illness became known, Hamas leaders declared on several occasions that they see their organization as a worthy substitute for the Palestinian Authority. Now, if Arafat, whether alive or dead, is gone from the leadership, Hamas will share the status of anyone with pretensions to rule, whether he be named Abu Mazen, Fatah, or the PLO itself. In view of this, calls from Hamas leaders for a united Palestinian leadership "to face new challenges" are getting increasingly loud. When Hamas talks about a unified leadership, it means its own representation will not shrink and may even exceed that of Fatah and its branches.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/01/2004 1:29:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose.
Article 27
Ignore the rants about the Rotary Club and the Lions Club, oh, and the Masons in articles 17, 22 and 28.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
