Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 12/27/2005 View Mon 12/26/2005 View Sun 12/25/2005 View Sat 12/24/2005 View Fri 12/23/2005 View Thu 12/22/2005 View Wed 12/21/2005
1
2005-12-27 Home Front: Politix
"Bush Presses Editors On Security"
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Cassini 2005-12-27 11:15|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Whats next? Does President Bush start dictating to the so-called MSM what stories are or are not
advantageous to his Iraq War "Victory"?

Probably the first thing he would censure from front page coverage is the daily:

Iraq War: "U.S. Military Death & Casualty Report & Tally"
Posted by Anonymous 2005-12-27 11:50||   2005-12-27 11:50|| Front Page Top

#2 Anonymous: Whats next? Does President Bush start dictating to the so-called MSM what stories are or are not
advantageous to his Iraq War "Victory"?

Probably the first thing he would censure from front page coverage is the daily:

Iraq War: "U.S. Military Death & Casualty Report & Tally"

What's next is hopefully subpoenas to the journalists publishing classified material about ongoing intelligence operations so that their sources can be identified and prosecuted. Casualty figures are not classified. Intelligence operations are. Americans know what the casualty figures are. Note that the MSM will not provide casualty figures from all past wars for a full comparison - the figures from Iraq have to be presented on their own to have the desired negative impact - because figures from past wars are so much higher.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 11:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 11:57|| Front Page Top

#3 It has occurred to me that GWB might be giving these people one last chance before he sends the Department of Justice against their reporters - to find out who their sources are. Reporters are self-selected *unelected* propagandists for the enemy. If they persist in breaking the law by publishing data harmful to America's national security - they should spend some quality time at Leavenworth.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 12:11|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 12:11|| Front Page Top

#4 "Note that the MSM will not provide casualty figures from all past wars for a full comparison..."

Nor will it provide any other sort of contextual information-- such as the simple fact that all our casualties so far, after nearly three years in Iraq, add up to barely 2 weeks worth of U.S. highway deaths.

Apparently we're supposed to rush off in a full-bore panic about the former, while shrugging off the latter.
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2005-12-27 12:25||   2005-12-27 12:25|| Front Page Top

#5 ZF, Agreed. This is a pre election effort get the MSM back on side and if it fails, post-election to deal with the MSM as on the other side. I doubt it would be limited to jailing reporters. I'd look for WH credential denial, perhaps by publication, and more explicit denial of stories and broad efforts to establish MSM non-credibility and enhance alternative media credibility.

Bush will use his lame duck period to do things he could do less easily while elections overhang. If the trunks do well in 2006, I hope he will be pretty agressive with the enemy MSM.
Posted by Thereth Omeresh1074 2005-12-27 12:30||   2005-12-27 12:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Because it is national security when this info is leaked, perhaps if we had a Federal Holding facility in Northeast Alaska, the reporter could be transported there 'till he reveals his source. Then the source could be sent there for his prison sentence...
Posted by BigEd 2005-12-27 12:40||   2005-12-27 12:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Anyone remotely connected with the NSA intercepts knows full well the legality of that activity. The ONLY crime that was committed was when they let this information outside official channels. I still want to see the perps convicted and sentenced to a LONG prison term.
Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge  2005-12-27 12:56||   2005-12-27 12:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Anonymous is, by posting this comment, at least a partial Kool Aid Kiddie - and also likely believes [some | all - Choose One] of the amazing tripe that is being pandered all over the Internet. There are an untold number of these toolfools who believe that BusHitler has already employed wildly draconian censorship and Gestapo tactics against the "watchdogs" of the MSM. They believe in an amazing fabric of conspiracies, Illuminazi Bilderbergian OWG nightmares - hell, you name it - they've already swallowed it whole. It started long ago and has been building up steam ever since. Bush has merely become the focal point.

If you don't already know about the true scope of the dementia, check out the Chomsky site as a single point in the tirade - it's only one of thousands of outlets for this BDS.

There is a HUGE industry cranking out conspiracy bullshit that is so patently and obviously untrue that it's breathtaking - and I encounter an endless stream of it in some venues I frequent - mostly "international" in makeup. When I challenge the screed, give them any flack for their delusional screeds, it brings the real hardcore wingnuts out of the woodwork - and the most egregiously insane among those are usually Americans.

So I'm saying the squirrels are not limited to the Indymedia, Kos Kiddies, or the DUmmies, not by a long shot. And what we see here in the 'Burg is, literally, nothing.

It would be beneficial for all Rantburgers to go check out some of the sites and see for themselves. Know Your Enemy, in other words. Employ whatever prophylactic seems apropos to you, lol.

If you choose to mix it up with them, lol, you will find out how deep the dementia runs. Don't confuse them with the facts - that this meme, among the legions of them being passed around in this delusional circle-jerk, is blatantly, obviously, and demonstrably untrue is not a point of discussion you can broach with these toolfools - it is an article of faith to them and most have moved well beyond into the truly fevered swamps of Black Helicopters and such. It'll be a bona-fide eye-opener for most, lol.

I invite those intrepid 'Burgers who already take the pulse of this mentally ill morass to post comments regards their excursions into the underbelly of insanity. After enough trips into the void, then they can tell me why my notion of CW-II is unfounded, lol. I'd love to hear their reasoning.

The laws on the books and the tools available have not yet been brought to bear upon the seditious assholes of the MSM and their co-conspirators. Why? I do not know - the laws are there for good reason and existed long before Bush became President. Not applying them, in a time of war, is absurd, IMHO.

What's he worried about? Bad press? Lol.
Posted by .com 2005-12-27 14:28||   2005-12-27 14:28|| Front Page Top

#9 Dave: Nor will it provide any other sort of contextual information-- such as the simple fact that all our casualties so far, after nearly three years in Iraq, add up to barely 2 weeks worth of U.S. highway deaths.

The counter-argument is that US soldiers' lives are a bit more valuable than the average citizens', for reasons I think you can guess. When you compare a highway death to the death of a US soldier in combat, this comparison, in a sense, belittles that soldier's sacrifice.

.com: then they can tell me why my notion of CW-II is unfounded, lol. I'd love to hear their reasoning.

I'd be careful about wishing for a CW-II. If it happens, you better make sure that US patriots are in full control of the US military, because the other side will get an awful lot of help from the rest of the world. Some people outside the US are having wet dreams about just this sort of scenario.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 15:15||   2005-12-27 15:15|| Front Page Top

#10 I agree, .com. I visit DU, the Daily Kos, and a few others and the depth of delusion is unbelievable. As you say, present facts to them and you just get called names. There is no reasoning with them and it really does worry me.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2005-12-27 15:29||   2005-12-27 15:29|| Front Page Top

#11 .com, save your breath. Anonymous is our ol' buddy Left Angle. But you guessed that already, right?
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2005-12-27 15:31||   2005-12-27 15:31|| Front Page Top

#12 Rafael --- Wishing? Don't make shit up and attribute it to me.

Sigh. What's so hard about looking at what has transpired since the minions of Mohammed gained material wealth, what they have chosen to do with it, the effects of their actions - there would be no Rantburg nor a need for one, for example, and then projecting that Big Picture understanding into the easily foreseeable future?

Are you willfully obnoxious, truly blind, or just being argumentative?

It will be what it will be. I merely predict it, I do not wish for it. I suggest we will have a choice: join the dhimmis or fight them - and their Mohammedan Masters. My preferences are, and will be, insignificant. I also find your notion that the US Military will need convincing or to be controlled by the side desiring freedom rather comical. They already get it - in a deeper sense that my paltry words can express.
Posted by .com 2005-12-27 15:41||   2005-12-27 15:41|| Front Page Top

#13 The NY Slimes and WaPo are directing their war on terror at the Bush administration and the country.

The MSM wishes that they would have the same impact as they did with Viet Nam. So much so, that they are willing to put the country at risk to serve their own agenda.

With the disclosures over the past several months, they have crossed the line and the Department of Justice must take action.

Bush has stated repeatedly that he takes responsibility for safeguarding the country. He falls short if action against the Slimes and WaPo is not forthcoming.
Posted by Captain America 2005-12-27 15:55||   2005-12-27 15:55|| Front Page Top

#14 .com makes a very good observation and suggestion. Everyone should review one of these fever swamps every so often. If you never visit the sites you could be startled when you are confronted with a full-fledged kool aid drinking liberal. Don’t fear them, just know where they are coming from and you have all the ammunition you need to disarm them.
Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge  2005-12-27 16:07||   2005-12-27 16:07|| Front Page Top

#15 Are you willfully obnoxious, truly blind, or just being argumentative?

Of the three I'd probably choose argumentative. Your continuing discussion of a CW2 comes across as wishful thinking and reactionary, if only because it seems a bit far-fetched. You're focusing on a small subset, the weirdest of the weird, and you think there's a budding revolution in the works? You seriously expect the Cindy Sheehans of the US to pick up a gun? Yeah, anyway.

I'm sure the US military "gets it", you just missed the point of that statement.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 16:25||   2005-12-27 16:25|| Front Page Top

#16 .com: The counter-argument is that US soldiers' lives are a bit more valuable than the average citizens', for reasons I think you can guess. When you compare a highway death to the death of a US soldier in combat, this comparison, in a sense, belittles that soldier's sacrifice.

I think the leftist argument is that traffic accidents are the unfortunate outgrowth of the fact that road accidents happen, but people need to drive to get to work, to school, et al. A leftist would say that we don't need to be in Iraq, which is why every American death there is completely unnecessary. Thus, in the leftist view, comparing the unavoidable deaths on our highways vs the avoidable deaths in Iraq is not only comparing apples and oranges, it disparages the real sacrifices made by our soldiers there.

This worldview rests on the basic premise that if we're not too involved overseas, we won't be attacked. I see where they're coming from. For over a century and a half after independence, we weren't involved in any major static alliances (like NATO or mutual defense pacts that we currently have with a number of countries) and certainly did not have any major issue with a foreign power that was solved by a static alliance. Our alliances were alliances of convenience.

Then WWII rolled around. In its aftermath, we signed mutual defense pact after mutual defense pact - static alliances (blank checks) that committed us to an open-ended defense of countries many Americans had never even heard of. We lost 100,000 men in Korea and Vietnam, twice as many as died fighting the Pacific War against the Japanese. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all fought in WWII, but they pulled back after that. You never hear of Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders targeted, do you? The leftist question is a good one - should we have a Canadian foreign policy? It would surely be a lot cheaper than having a globe-trotting military with far-flung bases and alliances that have to periodically be maintained with billions of dollars free stuff for our "allies".
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 16:32|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 16:32|| Front Page Top

#17 
Then WWII rolled around. In its aftermath, we signed mutual defense pact after mutual defense pact - static alliances (blank checks) that committed us to an open-ended defense of countries many Americans had never even heard of. We lost 100,000 men in Korea and Vietnam, twice as many as died fighting the Pacific War against the Japanese. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all fought in WWII, but they pulled back after that. You never hear of Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders targeted, do you? The leftist question is a good one - should we have a Canadian foreign policy? It would surely be a lot cheaper than having a globe-trotting military with far-flung bases and alliances that have to periodically be maintained with billions of dollars free stuff for our "allies".
The Australians have been targeted repeatedly; sometimes their support for the war in Iraq is given as a reason, and sometimes their efforts in East Timor is given as the reason...
Posted by Phil 2005-12-27 16:36||   2005-12-27 16:36|| Front Page Top

#18 ZF, it's also less expensive just to roll over and show your belly. How's that for a foreign policy?
BTW, that was my comment, not .com's.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 16:44||   2005-12-27 16:44|| Front Page Top

#19 Rafael: ZF, it's also less expensive just to roll over and show your belly. How's that for a foreign policy?
BTW, that was my comment, not .com's.

But what is "rolling over and showing your belly"? What exactly has Canada lost with its foreign policy? Was Uncle Sam rolling over and showing its belly over the 150+ years after independence that it stayed neutral over foreign quarrels? Should Uncle Sam have jumped in and sent troops to prevent France and Britain from colonizing the Mid East after the fall of the Ottoman empire?
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 16:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 16:57|| Front Page Top

#20 What exactly has Canada lost with its foreign policy?

That's like saying "what does Zimbabwe lose by not entering the Winter Olympics?"



Posted by Pappy 2005-12-27 17:08||   2005-12-27 17:08|| Front Page Top

#21 ZF,

don't fool yourself into believing that our foreign policy is about goodwill alone as I'm sure you don't really believe that do you? As that would be folly. We've got our reasons, need I create a list for you?

And Canada is just resting on the fact that they have the strongest military neighbor one could hope for and the chance of a foreign army invading canada is nill as long as we remain the badasses on the block. Canadian liberalism aside, its a smart move on their part, we, however, have no such luxury.

And really, would a policy of isolationism protect us from enemies? Very doubtful and very unrealistic IMHO.

But I'm not hearing a logical repreentation of this view from anywhere nor have I ever, so I digress.

EP
Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-27 17:11||   2005-12-27 17:11|| Front Page Top

#22 But what is "rolling over and showing your belly"?

Turning a blind eye to Hitler and Communism would have been the equivalent of rolling over. Sooner or later, it would have affected you, very negatively. Unless, of course, it's what you would want.

It's not really necessary to debate Canada's foreign policy in this context.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 17:14||   2005-12-27 17:14|| Front Page Top

#23 We lost 100,000 men in Korea and Vietnam, twice as many as died fighting the Pacific War against the Japanese.

Less than 50,000 US were killed in the Pacific? Live and lern.
Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-27 17:14||   2005-12-27 17:14|| Front Page Top

#24 I believe, ZF, that you addressed me incorrectly in #16.

Rafael - You and I are at odds every time you address me - such is life. Enjoy.

I said what I thought, clearly enough for most, and meant what I wrote, that's all.
Posted by .com 2005-12-27 17:35||   2005-12-27 17:35|| Front Page Top

#25 Elvis: And really, would a policy of isolationism protect us from enemies? Very doubtful and very unrealistic IMHO.

Worked fine for us right up to WWI. Wilson got 100,000 American boys killed in WWI for nothing. Note that in the run-up to WWII, we were isolationist, but not weak. Japan could not invade Hawaii successfully even after Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that most of our military efforts were devoted to fighting the Germans, first in Africa, then in Italy and then in France. If we hadn't gotten involved in Europe during WWII, Germany and the Soviet Union would have spent many more years beating each other up in a bloody stalemate. I see no issues with fascists and communists slaughtering each other by the millions. Not. Our. Problem. If we had devoted our war effort to fighting Japan, our body count would have been 50,000 dead (including POW's slaughtered by them). As it was, we lost 250,000 dead to the Germans and Italians as well.

It was one thing for the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders to get involved - the queen was their sovereign, and any of the leaders of these Commonwealth nations could technically have become the British prime minister. What symbolic value (with respect to WWII) was involved for Uncle Sam that wasn't involved in the various wars waged in Europe during the first 100+ years of America's existence?
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 17:40|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 17:40|| Front Page Top

#26 ZF, in what sense did Australia pull back after WW2,like Canada and New Zealand? Australia did it's share and more in Korea, Malaya and Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Iraq, Afganistan. Likewise in Bougainville, the Solomons and East Timor. I would say there are two countries in the world that have never doubted that freedom isn't free, and one of them is Australia.
Posted by Grunter 2005-12-27 17:49||   2005-12-27 17:49|| Front Page Top

#27 Why it's almost like the Germans declared war on the US for no good reason except to maintain the status quo Britiannia. Foolish of them.
Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-27 17:50||   2005-12-27 17:50|| Front Page Top

#28 I don't even know where to begin. So, I will not waste my time.

America, as a nation, has had this discussion before, and isolationism was not the determined outcome.

Your opinions are yours, so whatever.

EP
Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-27 17:51||   2005-12-27 17:51|| Front Page Top

#29 Elvis doen't understand that the Federal Reserve is determined to Plow Under Every 4th American Boy. Wake up and smell the imported coffee Elvis! Drop the imported bannana. Get a pure peanut butter sandwich and come to Pat.
Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-27 18:00||   2005-12-27 18:00|| Front Page Top

#30 What symbolic value (with respect to WWII) was involved for Uncle Sam that wasn't involved in the various wars waged in Europe during the first 100+ years of America's existence?

I dunno. Stopping the holocaust may have been of some symbolic value. That was a WW2 first, the holocaust, I believe. But then again, that wasn't your problem. Have you not a heart, soul, or humanity in you, that you tolerate such evil? Do you not believe that they would come after you, after they were finished in Europe?

God I hate Buchananites.

.com: Rafael - You and I are at odds every time you address me

It's only because I feel that our fight against a common foe is slowly diverging. We're fighting the same enemy, but in different battles. How I wish it were not so.

Though your comment just now in another thread surprised me. It's not like you. I gotta read it again.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 18:04||   2005-12-27 18:04|| Front Page Top

#31 LC: Less than 50,000 US were killed in the Pacific? Live and lern.

This figure includes non-combat and POW (over 13,000 POW's dead in Japanese custody, thousands massacred on the spot) dead. The Japanese had it tough - we duked it out with them in the skies, on the high seas and on various islands on the way to Japan. American domination of the skies and the sea prevented many Japanese outposts from either being reinforced or resupplied. And so they fell, one after another. Many ran out of food and water before they ran out of ammunition, which is when the suicidal banzai charges against American troops took place. After some initial hiccups, American technology totally dominated Japanese technology. Most Japanese tanks were Type 92 tin-cans vulnerable to American .50 caliber machine-gun fire. American fighters both outnumbered and outclassed the Japanese Zero, and survived multiple hits by the enemy, whereas many Japanese planes went down in flames after a single hit. American warships had better armor and fire control systems. Overall, it was just a complete mismatch. The only thing that held back the conclusion of the Pacific War was the devotion of three-quarters of the war effort to fighting Germany, which both inflicted and absorbed fearful casualties.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 18:04|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 18:04|| Front Page Top

#32 When did this become a dialogue for the freak show.

Hmmm, Hitler's quest for World domination. maybe that was good enough reasoning for the European front in WWII. And had Soviet Russia whipped Germany's ass, well, we wouldn't call that a reasonably acceptable outcome either would we? You think isolationism was on their agenda?

Don't we all know better?

We didn't need any other reason, not one more.When was logic overcome by dumbassedry on the Burg? Did this happen while I was away, why didn't anyone warn me?

And for the historically challenged, the Holocaust wasn't common knowledge, even within US intelligence circles, until we finally conquered the Nazis. It may provide plenty of reason for those who don't mind meglomaniacal fascist takeover, and who needed other more openly ghastly reasoning for our sacrifices in WWII, but it wasn't a pretext for our involvement by any stretch of the imagination.

EP
Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-27 18:21||   2005-12-27 18:21|| Front Page Top

#33 LC: Elvis doen't understand that the Federal Reserve is determined to Plow Under Every 4th American Boy. Wake up and smell the imported coffee Elvis! Drop the imported bannana. Get a pure peanut butter sandwich and come to Pat.

Buchanan has strange and impractical ideas about economics and trade, and tends to blame America first when it is attacked by foreign enemies. He also happens to be a big-time anti-semite. My point is that Pat also puts on his pants one leg at a time. Doesn't mean we should all try to be different and slide both legs in simultaneously.

You don't have to be an anti-semite to suggest that the Holocaust was not our problem. The war in Europe cost 250,000 American dead. American lives are worth something, too. We could have stopped the slaughter of 1m Rwandans at the cost of less than a few thousand American dead. But we did not. We could have stopped the slaughter of 1m Cambodians by reinserting troops into Indochina and perhaps losing a few thousand men. but we did not. Does this mean we are anti-black or anti-Asian? No. It means that the lives of American soldiers are just as precious as the lives of the foreigners they could have been sent to save.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 18:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 18:22|| Front Page Top

#34 I am surprised that Ar15 hasn't lifted his leg to contribute to this thread.
Posted by badanov 2005-12-27 18:32|| http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl]">[http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl]  2005-12-27 18:32|| Front Page Top

#35 Elvis: And for the historically challenged, the Holocaust wasn't common knowledge, even within US intelligence circles, until we finally conquered the Nazis.

I know that - but this is part of the ex poste facto reasoning by people who ask this question, namely "if you knew about the Holocaust, would you have supported the campaign in Europe?" My response is that it wouldn't have affected my view, for reasons I have explained above - American lives are worth something, too.

Elvis: It may provide plenty of reason for those who don't mind meglomaniacal fascist takeover, and who needed other more openly ghastly reasoning for our sacrifices in WWII, but it wasn't a pretext for our involvement by any stretch of the imagination.

The history of Europe is a history of wars for the total domination of the continent. Europe's history did not begin in the 20th century - a lot of European wars were fought that our presidents, in their infinite wisdom, chose not to become a part of. Believe it or not, a lot of European wars were fought prior to the founding of these United States. Hitler's desire for empire wasn't unique. And Germany was no threat to the United States. Note that by the time we declared war against Germany, the Battle of Britain had just concluded with a win for Britain. So Britain itself was not under threat.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 18:36|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 18:36|| Front Page Top

#36 You don't have to be an anti-semite to suggest that the Holocaust was not our problem.

No, not an anti-semite...
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 18:40||   2005-12-27 18:40|| Front Page Top

#37 a lot of European wars were fought that our presidents, in their infinite wisdom, chose not to become a part of.

Though none were quite like WW2, so maybe you should pick a better comparison...oh wait, there is none.

So Britain itself was not under threat.

??? LOL.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 18:48||   2005-12-27 18:48|| Front Page Top

#38 should we have a Canadian foreign policy? It would surely be a lot cheaper...

To an economist this is known as a free rider foreign policy. It was easy for the U. S. to adopt it for its first 150 years because Great Britain maintained freedom of the seas and accepted (a large amount of) free trade.

Had we been cleverer in WWI and WWII we could still be free riding off the Royal Navy. But instead we decided to bankrupt Great Britain and forced her to prematurely disgorge her empire. As a result, there was no longer a great power to ensure the peace of the world and a lot more problems in it. And since we held all the marbles and had the most to lose from change, the responsibility fell to us.

Having made that bed, we must now sleep in it as best we can. We thought we had done it right with the UN and NATO, but they have proven to be as effective as a junior high school student council. So we must find another mechanism to share the burden with the remaining adults before they find free riding to be as pleasant as we found it for 150 years. The league of democracies or common law countries sounds like ok to me.
Posted by Gluger Clemble8113 2005-12-27 18:51||   2005-12-27 18:51|| Front Page Top

#39 Never mind that the Nazis would have had an ICBM in their hands with the possibility of the nuke had we never destroyed their asses.

I'm done, holla at the rest of y'all tomorrow.

EP
Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-27 18:57||   2005-12-27 18:57|| Front Page Top

#40 badanov> Well I *could* discuss about how Buchanian isolationism feels to me to fit in with a global reactionary ideology supported by the most negative ideologies in a number of regions (black anti-white racism in Zimbabwe, Amerindian supremacist talk in Latin America, Russian neoczarism), and the transformation of Huntington's world view from a descriptive model to a prescriptive one, something that I consider very negative to the panhumane struggle for democracy and freedom...

... but when points of morality arise, points of political theory are secondary in importance. I stand with Rafael who has taken up the argument well. Allow me to rest from the forum today, badanov.
Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris  2005-12-27 19:13||   2005-12-27 19:13|| Front Page Top

#41 GC8113: Had we been cleverer in WWI and WWII we could still be free riding off the Royal Navy. But instead we decided to bankrupt Great Britain and forced her to prematurely disgorge her empire.

No offense, but we protected the freedom of the seas for our merchant ships on our own. This is why we've had a pretty substantial navy for a big part of our existence. This is why Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet of sixteen battleships did its world tour 100 years ago - to show the flag (and their guns). America wasn't into fixed alliances, but it wasn't into pacifism, either. It is why we had, arguably, a more powerful fleet than Britain at the outset of WWII. Then, as now, it remains every man for himself. When a Taiwanese ship was hijacked off the coast of Somalia, Uncle Sam did not come running, did he?

As to the dissolution of the British empire, that came about because of a British fear of casualties, not any American pressure. The French came under the same pressure, tried to hang on, but ultimately gave up after tens of thousands of dead and billions in war expenditures. The Dutch did not give up Batavia (Indonesia) because they wanted to, or because of American pressure. They gave up because the benefits weren't worth the cost in lives or money. They took their lumps from the rebels for a while, packed up and decided to go home.

As to bankrupting Britain - nothing of the sort happened - it went through a major postwar boom. Leftists predicted that since European imperialists supposedly got rich off their colonies, decolonization should make the erstwhile conquerors much poorer. Instead they got rich, and living standards in Western Europe got much better in the post-colonial era. It was the colonies - with a few exceptions - that got a lot poorer.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 19:13|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 19:13|| Front Page Top

#42 Rafael: ??? LOL.

As a subject of the Crown, you ought to know a little more about the Battle of Britain, and the strategic consequence of the outcome of that battle. By the end of that battle, the existential threat to Britain was gone. That's why Churchill said of the RAF - "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 19:21|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 19:21|| Front Page Top

#43 More than The White House are fed up with the antics of the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost.

Posted by doc 2005-12-27 19:40||   2005-12-27 19:40|| Front Page Top

#44 we've had a pretty substantial navy for a big part of our existence

We had virtually no navy capable of operating ourside our territorial waters in the 19th century. That is why when we finally developed one, Roosevelt sent it on a world tour to prove that the Spanish Ameican War was not just the defeat of a sixth rank navy by a third rank one.

That the U. S. did not free ride on the Royal Navy for 19th century freedom of the seas, suppression of slavery and piracy is ridiculous. It was our cheapskate policy then, but one to which we cannot return now.
Posted by Hupomoque Glavising8538 2005-12-27 19:49||   2005-12-27 19:49|| Front Page Top

#45 Nice revisionist history, ZF.

As to bankrupting Britain - nothing of the sort happened

Britain's ambassador to the US, Lord Lothian, in late 1940, thought otherwise. Hence lend-lease.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 19:55||   2005-12-27 19:55|| Front Page Top

#46 Franklin Roosenfield sent a cruiser to South Africa to pick-up the last of the UK gold reserves. It was the last great act of internal Zionism.

/geebus, do I have to?

The UK was not bankrupt, but was very much il-liquid.
Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-27 20:23||   2005-12-27 20:23|| Front Page Top

#47  It has occurred to me that GWB might be giving these people one last chance before he sends the Department of Justice against their reporters - to find out who their sources are.

The DoJ needs to investigate every single leak that has occurred, root out the culprits, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. The leakers and their comrades-in-arms in the media don't even deserve one chance; they know exactly what they're doing.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-27 20:27||   2005-12-27 20:27|| Front Page Top

#48 doc: More than The White House are fed up with the antics of the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost.

I'm afraid Dow Jones and Co, publisher of the Journal, has followed a similar trajectory, from about $43 to $32, over the same period. The stock has perked up a little on buyout speculation. Fact is that Dow Jones and Co is less profitable than either WaPo or NYT, which is why it is a buyout candidate - potential acquirers probably see some room for cuts in the newsroom.

Liberals are scrooges when they run corporations. How do liberals reconcile this with their left-wing beliefs? I think the way they see it, it is the government's job to provide benefits for all the people they fire. This is why NYT and WaPo are best-of-breed investments, if you think the newspaper business has a future.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 20:52|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 20:52|| Front Page Top

#49 the WSJ is totally liberal outside the editorial page
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-12-27 20:55||   2005-12-27 20:55|| Front Page Top

#50 LC: Franklin Roosenfield sent a cruiser to South Africa to pick-up the last of the UK gold reserves. It was the last great act of internal Zionism.

LC is accusing me of being an anti-semite. I'm afraid he's the racist. We ignored a *lot* of people during WWII. Millions of Chinese died during WWII - estimates run as high as 20m, but Uncle Sam did not send troops to the Chinese mainland to evict the Japanese. Rescuing Jews or Chinese is not some kind of special obligation Americans have.

The Philippines was an American territory during WWII. It was attacked a day after Pearl Harbor. Thousands of American prisoners were being held there. And yet we liberated Paris in August 1944, but waited until February 1945 before liberating Manila. Hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians were massacred during the Japanese occupation by the Japanese, who saw them as an inferior race. But no - Europe had to come first. This is why MacArthur raged against the Europe-first strategy - he saw this, rightly, as a betrayal of the Filipinos who had relied on us for their defense.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 21:17|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 21:17|| Front Page Top

#51 FG: the WSJ is totally liberal outside the editorial page

Correct, but this is the paper conservatives buy - for business news and for the opinion section. And Dow Jones and Co is sliding along with NYT and WaPo. A lot of ad money is being diverted to the internet. People aren't reading newspapers as much as they used to because of free news on the internet. The loss of newsstand circulation added to the loss of ad revenue equates to lower total revenues. At some point, this may stabilize. But we are not there, yet. And all papers of all ideological stripes are being affected by this trend. This is why Canada's Hollinger Group, which publishes a bunch of conservative papers, went through significant financial problems and had a switch in ownership recently.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 21:24|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 21:24|| Front Page Top

#52 LC is accusing me of being an anti-semite.

No, not an anti-semite...You're something worse, actually.

Rescuing Jews or Chinese is not some kind of special obligation Americans have.

No obligation. But it is kind of nice...and well, human. And whether it was the Jews, Chinese, or Filipinos, it's a good thing that at least one of the three was saved from more torment. At least it was good in my eyes, I don't know about anyone else.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 21:31||   2005-12-27 21:31|| Front Page Top

#53 there's something about Americans - we actually do things for higher purposes at times, even if there's no benefit for us. Rescuing the Jews, Chinese, et al is such a case, and to do less would be...unamerican
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-12-27 21:43||   2005-12-27 21:43|| Front Page Top

#54 HG8538: We had virtually no navy capable of operating ourside our territorial waters in the 19th century.

You may have heard of the Marine song:

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli (1805)
We fight our country's battles
In the air on land and sea.
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to bear the title
Of United States Marines.

Note that Tripoli is not a city in these United States. When we ran into trouble in the Mediterranean, it wasn't the Brits who helped us out - we had to send our guys out there to take care of business. The British Navy took care of its vessels. We took care of ours.

The Japanese definitely remember the Black Ships from 1853 - we gave them a ringing demonstration at Edo (now Tokyo). Fact is that our navies spent a lot of time shadowing each other, much as we did with the Soviets during the Cold War. Britain was the established Pacific power, and we were the up-and-comers, ready to reach for our slice if the European powers did partition China. And the only way to do this was with ocean-going warships. US Navy ships spent a big chunk of their time fighting pirates who preyed on American merchant vessels. (There are some fine accounts of some of this activity on the part of some of the Black Ships that showed up in Edo at this link - just click on the ships' names).
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 22:05|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 22:05|| Front Page Top

#55 Rafael: No, not an anti-semite...You're something worse, actually.

Well, I know what you are - you're someone out to save the world, right down to the last dead American. Me, personally, I don't really want to save the world - American lives are precious to me, as they would not be to a Canadian.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-12-27 22:11|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-12-27 22:11|| Front Page Top

#56 Wow, our black ships scared the Japanese who hadn't seen them, or such ugly smelly crewmen, before and we sent some pretty courageous guys to knock heads with the Berber thugs who haven't changed much in the intervening two centuries, morally or technically.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the amphibiuos capabilities we demonstrated against the Mexicans and the destruction of the British fleet on Lake Erie.

The fact remains, we were a free rider in the nineteenth century. It's not really anything to be ashamed of. And other powers are today, especially as we allow them. And we don't have much choice in it.
Posted by Gluger Clemble8113 2005-12-27 22:26||   2005-12-27 22:26|| Front Page Top

#57 American lives are precious to me, as they would not be to a Canadian.

Oh no? Ah, so I see where the problem lies. This being an American forum, undoubtedly this scores you many points. Rest assured, to me, American lives are as precious as any other good human being's life. But since I do share a special connection with America, I'd be inclined to defend Americans more than anyone else perhaps, at this moment. America's well being is also my well being.
I'll defend anyone who stands for the good side. A concept that seems foreign to you, obviously.

Your values are completely alien to me.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 23:27||   2005-12-27 23:27|| Front Page Top

#58 I don't think Canada's lost - just part is suffering from the EU disease. We need a few more states in the US....
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-12-27 23:37||   2005-12-27 23:37|| Front Page Top

#59 A step in the right direction would be getting rid of Paul Martin and his ilk. Fat chance, however.
Posted by Rafael 2005-12-27 23:45||   2005-12-27 23:45|| Front Page Top

23:55 gromgoru
23:46 CaziFarkus
23:45 Rafael
23:37 Frank G
23:33 Frank G
23:30 Frank G
23:27 Rafael
23:07 Silentbrick
23:06 Glaviting Thineth6488
22:56 Londo Mollari
22:51 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:42 Captain America
22:26 Gluger Clemble8113
22:23 twobyfour
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:11 Zhang Fei
22:05 Zhang Fei
22:04 Barbara Skolaut
22:04 Bomb-a-rama
21:55 Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu
21:47 Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu
21:43 Frank G
21:36 Rafael









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com