Hillary Pulls it Out.

[Pure]

i simply don't believe that the US and Japan and all the social democracies of europe are going to be unable to deal with the aging populace and high demand for medical services.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Touche'. The post you quote might have added, "dedicated to the overall military effort, and scaring the piss out of the Russkies."

More like, "You think we're all pussies...

How's that for brutality?

We exterminate at will.

Are we badass like you guys?

Huh? Please say we are..."

 

[Boxlicker101]

More like, "You think we're all pussies...

How's that for brutality?

We exterminate at will.

Are we badass like you guys?

Huh? Please say we are..."

I agree that the reason for the extreme bombing of Dresden was to send a message, but it was aimed at Hitler and the German High Command. The city hadn't been bombed very much because it was not a prime military target, and it was in the center of Germany, surrounded by the German air defenses. By destroying this city, the Allies were saying: "Look at what we just did. We can do this to all your cities, all over your nation, and we will, if you don't surrender." It didn't work, and the war continued, with even greater destruction and loss of lfe.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

More like, "You think we're all pussies...

How's that for brutality?

We exterminate at will.

Are we badass like you guys?

Huh? Please say we are..."

Hmmm - not sure about those last two lines, but perhaps it's a distinction without a difference. My version would be, "So don't fuck with us. BTW, we can be a bit crazy sometimes, so really don't fuck with us."

 

[cantdog]

Strange choice of message, Rox, considering how long the war had already been going on.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Strange choice of message, Rox, considering how long the war had already been going on.

A very strange message, especially considering the Soviets and the Nazis had been fucking with Europe for years by that time.

I agree there was a message there, but why couldn't it have been aimed at the German government? Earlier, I said it didn't work. I was probably wrong. Germany surrendered unconditionally three months later. This wasn't the only reason, but it was probably a factor.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm reading a history of the Bush family.

I didnt care for them before I started reading, and I like them less now.

But the author makes an excellent point: The Democrats bungled the 2000 legal effort in Florida. And that was Al Gore's handywork. He picked the wrong battle to fight and handed Bush an issue to take to the Supreme Court. He threw Brer Rabbit into the briarpatch.

His people wanted to go after the overvotes, Al wanted to focus on the chads and undervote. His victory was in the overvotes...about 8000 votes more than Bush in those 175,000 discarded ballots.

Pick your battles!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Strange choice of message, Rox, considering how long the war had already been going on.

As always, so much depends on context. Recall that the population of Britain in particular was exhausted with it all, and while in a triumphal mood the US just wanted to be done and get back to making money (and babies as it turned out). There was plenty of grumbling and not a lot of patience. Not sure how much they were thinking about it, but if they had the Allied leaders could have predicted how fast we "de-mobbed" after the shooting stopped.

Given that context, it would have been plausible for the Sov's to think we would not have the will to resist the completion of their European conquest. The message of Dresden would have been, then, "We don't need to mobilize the whole population for general war because we have this airpower instrument with which we can incinerate cities with just few thousand men. Don't fuck with us!"

Proto-MAD deterrence so to speak, with conventional bombs.

 

[Pure]

i think rox is correct as regards the atomic bombs. they *were* to intimidate the russians, in part.

my question is this. according to the repugs, and conservatives like Roxanne, and theocrats, and fake libertarians like amicus, only the repubs have got balls to deal with the enemy.

yet Roosevelt led in wwii, truman in Korea, johnson in vietnam. kennedy attempted to invade cuba, and got the vietnam intervention going, etc.

so why are all dems pussies (something mrs clinton is trying to counteract)

 

[cantdog]

As always, so much depends on context. Recall that the population of Britain in particular was exhausted with it all, and while in a triumphal mood the US just wanted to be done and get back to making money (and babies as it turned out). There was plenty of grumbling and not a lot of patience. Not sure how much they were thinking about it, but if they had the Allied leaders could have predicted how fast we "de-mobbed" after the shooting stopped.

Given that context, it would have been plausible for the Sov's to think we would not have the will to resist the completion of their European conquest. The message of Dresden would have been, then, "We don't need to mobilize the whole population for general war because we have this airpower instrument with which we can incinerate cities with just few thousand men. Don't fuck with us!"

Proto-MAD deterrence so to speak, with conventional bombs.

That kind of message generally pisses people off and strengthens their resolve. That's what the V2 bombs did in Britain. That's what the B52s did in Vietnam. Large scale bombings don't generally demoralize, but rather engender hatred and a desire to hit back, with a greater willingness to sacrifice. The intended message is probably much as Box suggests, but the received message would have been less satisfactory: We are amoral pricks. We deserve the worst you can do to us. Never never never give up.

Because the allies indulged in wholesale attacks on civilians, similar atrocities by the Axis could not be defined as war crimes. We still do this sort of thing today. And it still has much the same effect.

 

[rgraham666]

so why are all dems pussies (something mrs clinton is trying to counteract)

Because you cannot ascribe what you regard as positive traits to your enemy. Your enemy is always the epitome of evil. If they had positive traits it's possible that you might end up as human as you. Then you might have to deal with them as human beings rather than fight them at every turn. You might find it possible to compromise.

That simply isn't possible.

 

[cantdog]

Exactly so. Group-centered morality is pretty stark stuff, and justifies perfectly St. Bartholomew's Day massacres, Kristallnachten, Shock and Awe attacks-- anything. Whereas the members of the Other group are in fact human.

 

[DesertPirate]

yet Roosevelt led in wwii, truman in Korea, johnson in vietnam. kennedy attempted to invade cuba, and got the vietnam intervention going, etc.

Roosevelt-won, Truman- stalemate, Johnson- incompetant, Kennedy- based on Cuba- incompetant, otherwise- unknown.
If Kennedy had followed the original plan and supplied air support it might have worked. Without it, catastrophe.
Johnson was so afraid of the Soviets getting involved he had our troops fighting with at least one hand tied behind them the whole time.

 

[rgraham666]

I disagree. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in WWII. It didn't help.

The reason the U.S. lost in Vietnam (And the Soviets in Afghanistan) was a major difference in importance of the goals on both sides. The locals put great, great importance on kicking the foreigners out of their country. They were quite willing to suffer greatly in order to be able to decide for themselves how their country would be run. The invaders had a mild strategic interest and a slight higher honour interest.

Essentially the Vietnamese and the Afghanis were willing to stay at the table and continue betting. The U.S. and the Soviets were not.

 

[CharleyH]

Wins NH, 39 to Obama's 37.

Any thoughts? Why better than Iowa. Some analysts say it was strong women's support, and working class backing. Obama's people tended to be more well to do.

She is certainly a viable candidate with a shot at the Presidency, if a bit right wing for my taste. I suppose the far-right slime machine will be revving up again, and its local rep., our sham libertarian, "send the ragheads to Guantanamo", fellow.

Thoughts. Did "the moment" help?

Is her "triangulation" on issues, a factor?

What are her 'core constituencies'? How will she do with Black voters?

---
NOTE: this thread is not meant to promote any particular Democratic candidate. all the frontrunners are worthy of being considered. Obama is certainly a candidate with 'class.'

My only comment and the only thing I can say is that I hope she wins. Obama has his mark on, but he just doesn't have what it takes ... yet.

 

[DesertPirate]

I disagree. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in WWII. It didn't help.

The reason the U.S. lost in Vietnam (And the Soviets in Afghanistan) was a major difference in importance of the goals on both sides. The locals put great, great importance on kicking the foreigners out of their country. They were quite willing to suffer greatly in order to be able to decide for themselves how their country would be run. The invaders had a mild strategic interest and a slight higher honour interest.

Essentially the Vietnamese and the Afghanis were willing to stay at the table and continue betting. The U.S. and the Soviets were not.

Tonnage is meaningless when it wasn't aimed properly.
Johnson accomplished next to nothing with his micrmanaging of the war.
Nixon got an agreement (bad as it was) in two weeks of hitting all the targets Johnson wouldn't. if that had been done 6 years earlier it might have been different for all involved.

 

[Pure]

pirate: Nixon got an agreement (bad as it was) in two weeks of hitting all the targets Johnson wouldn't

this nixon kissinger strategy was arguably a war crime, and likely useless. an agreement was at hand, the US was 'losing'. the fluryy of last minute bombing just provided 'cover. a bit like GWB's surge.

Roosevelt-won, Truman- stalemate, Johnson- incompetant, Kennedy- based on Cuba- incompetant, otherwise- unknown.

i don't accept this. the outcome has to judged against what's possible.
the division of korea was probably the best available. the alternative rightwing approach of macarthur, land war with China, and an attempt to control the whole peninsula was mad. likewise Vietnam ended with the best available.

the gist seems to be that Repugs with 'balls' could've fixed all these things much more to the US advantage. not so. GWB with his fake 'balls' and Petraus with his real ones are not going to get a very favorable outcome in Iraq.

the world changes. asymmetric wars have different rules. and as has been said, if the stronger does not win--e.g. the US in vietnam-- then the weaker has.

 

[rgraham666]

On the micromanaging I agree. Although I blame MacNamara for that more than Johnson. Actually I blame MacNamara for a lot of things. The penultimate MBA he was. Rational, well trained, precise, highly analytical. And a complete dolt when it came to handling the real world. Whether it was Ford, the Defence Department or The World Bank, everything he touched turned to shit.

Nixon may have hit those targets, but I and the Vietnamese knew it was a theatrical gesture, to show that the U.S. wasn't pulling out because they were beaten. They were but Nixon couldn't actually say so.

Also, I don't believe the U.S. had the technology or the tactics to do that six years earlier. Their electronics weren't that useful against Soviet radar. The Iron Hand/Wild Weasel strike teams weren't in wide spread use. And there weren't the quality of precision guided munitions needed to strike at the targets required.

My opinion, anyway.

It was a useless war anyway. It never needed to be fought. After he beat the French the first country Ho Chi Minh went to for help was the U.S. They turned him down. Being a 'Communist' he was automatically an enemy.

Sigh. A little brains would have gone a long way.

 

[Pure]

note to charley

My only comment and the only thing I can say is that I hope she wins.

though she's a bit right wing for my taste, i like her better and better the more i see the right wing slime machine at work: relentless sexism, comments on her butt, menopause etc.

i pray the the amicus and foulmouth rednecks keep up the garbage and put her in office!

 

[Pure]

rg Sigh. A little brains would have gone a long way [in preventing the vietnam war].

well put. the war was arguably unnecessary, and did NOT represent either soviet or chinese 'expansionism.' (vietnamese HATE the chinese). ho could have turned into a kind of Tito, a national commie, friendly to the US.

 

[rgraham666]

Also, I'll dispute that Korea was a stalemate. It accomplished what it set out to do. Kick the North Koreans and the Chinese out of South Korea, as the U.N. Mandate said should be done.

Like when Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait. That's all they were authorized to do. No more.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Every night I pray to Jesus that Hillary is elected President. I plan to vote for her.

I'm confident that if she's elected there wont be another Democrat President or Congress for 50 years. If she's elected her inauguration will mark the first occasion that looting is the chief entertainment rather than a parade. Her staff will carry off everything in Washington that isnt on fire.

But I dont think Jesus loves me enough to let her get elected.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roosevelt-won, Truman- stalemate, Johnson- incompetant, Kennedy- based on Cuba- incompetant, otherwise- unknown.
If Kennedy had followed the original plan and supplied air support it might have worked. Without it, catastrophe.

OK, I'll play, and this relates to the other posts in this "game" too.

Roosevelt won. Too much an oversimplification. How about a three-way victory: Churchill held the line until June 1941, Russians did most of the bleeding, and from late 1942 on the yanks provided the materiel (and the wealth) to carry the "team" over the goal line. Plus plenty of blood, of course, and technology. Special nod to George Marshall for strategizing and managing the US contribution. And to the US aviation industry (Imagine how that B-29 must have appeared in 1944 - like sci-fi.)

Truman stalemate. I share Pure's analysis - only realistic outcome.

Kennedy incompetent. True. Plus lost his nerve. BTW, why were they all asleep on PT 109? He should have been court martialed, cashiered and imprisoned.

Johnson incompetent. Yep. In spades.

BTW, Pure's comment on Nixon's bombing is mostly on target, but there's one important detail in that: Nixon mined Haiphong harbor, through which the Russkies kept North Viet Nam supplied. Johnson was a spineless puke for not doing that seven years sooner.

Bush I - won. He did. I remember thinking that August day when the Iraqi tanks rolled into "Province 19," "There's one fewer UN member." I was surprised as heck when it became clear that Bush I was serious about taking it back. I thought at the time, here is the last US prez who had first-hand experience of WWII, and he has truly internalized a great lesson from that war, which is to nip aggressors in the bud. WWII really began when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1935, and pansie-Britain and France did nothing. "WWII" might have ended that same day and without a single casualty if the pansies had had balls.

Clinton - he played political games with the military. Cruise missiles on aspirin factories and "terrorist training camps," indeed! I'll give him (and Blair et al) Kosovo, though. That was a good one.

Bush II. ??? 50 years on history may confirm the current view - incompetent cowboy - or perhaps the invasion will end up having unpredictably positive effects, perhaps indirect, in ways that will be completely surprising. No one in the heat and press of the moment can know, and those who speak with certainty in either direction might be less certain if they knew more history, given all its imponderable and unpredictable twists and turns.


One final point, on "bombing." Target selection is everything. Add to my Haiphong example, Marshall (or whoever) focusing on Axis petroleum production in WWII. That, and perhaps the trashing of Germany's rail and transportation network, were probably the only really worthwhile use of strategic airpower in WWII. And for all the "glamour" and horror of B-29 firebombing, arguably their mine-laying (added onto to the submarine campaign) were more critical to defeating Japan. One fallacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The US did not need to invade Japan with "a million casualties." They just had to continue to "besiege" it for a while - the population was starving, industry had collapsed, and the Japanese islands were sealed in tight as a drum.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Interesting how those who can discuss politics seriously and with some sophistication all know a lot more about history than the general population. I daresay that those involved in this thread won't find much if anything referred to in my previous post that they don't already know (certainly nothing really important). On the other hand, sadly, for the general population those references even to, say, Truman would be totally meaningless.

 

[rgraham666]

And for all the "glamour" and horror of B-29 firebombing, arguably their mine-laying (added onto to the submarine campaign) were more critical to defeating Japan. One fallacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The US did not need to invade Japan with "a million casualties." They just had to continue to "besiege" it for a while - the population was starving, industry had collapsed, and the Japanese islands were sealed in tight as a drum.

Broken clocks mesh again.