Barack Hussein Obama "A closer look"

stockingfull wrote:I love this stuff.

We invade Iraq and hang Saddam because he "gassed" some Kurds who'd tried to assassinate him and killed 5,000. Yet we don't invade Saudi Arabia after 19 of 22 9/11 terrorists came out of their anti-American culture.

And why exactly are Hiroshima and Nagasaki sacrosanct and immune from criticism? Sure, that "full-scale atomic testing" shortened the war and prevented tens of thousands of GI (and Japanese) casualties, but those would have been military losses. Instead, we chose to incinerate 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki. Oh, and let's not forget the German cultural center of Dresden, where between 24,000 and 40,000 civilians were fried in the tactically dubious February 1945 fire-bombing.

But nobody can question whether those things are consistent with our principles? Of course, the answer is that we can, just not if we're preaching to a candidate for Prez.

stockingfull wrote:How about trying an answer to the substance of it for a change?

stockingfull wrote:I love this stuff.

We invade Iraq and hang Saddam because he "gassed" some Kurds who'd tried to assassinate him and killed 5,000. Yet we don't invade Saudi Arabia after 19 of 22 9/11 terrorists came out of their anti-American culture.
Your off handed way of describing the horrible agonizing death of thousands of Kurdish women and children as "he "gassed" some Kurds" is perplexing. Those people drowned in their own saliva. Not a pretty sight. And your mantra that 19 of the 22 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia is getting old. They weren't acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia. They were recruited and trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan by OBL.

And why exactly are Hiroshima and Nagasaki sacrosanct and immune from criticism? Sure, that "full-scale atomic testing" shortened the war and prevented tens of thousands of GI (and Japanese) casualties, but those would have been military losses. Instead, we chose to incinerate 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki. Oh, and let's not forget the German cultural center of Dresden, where between 24,000 and 40,000 civilians were fried in the tactically dubious February 1945 fire-bombing.
[color=#0000FF]We were attacked by Japan. Is there no fight you think is worth it? The Japanese were cruel beyond believe to our prisoners of war. The whole country of Japan was ready to try to repel invaders and it would have been a blood bath on both sides. I'm sure it was a tough decission to make to drop those bombs but by all expert accounts I've read, it likley saved millions of lives. We were at war for our survival!!! You don't seem to understand that. It sounds like you would prefer us to line up in columns like the British did in the American revolution because that's the proper way to do war. It was kill the enemy in WWII or be killed. I contend we are in that situation now with Islam. We are at war and it's kill or be killed. It will become clearer to the more thick headed among us as time goes on and things escalate here in the US. Stepping back to look at our situation with some sense of perspective, we are in the early skirmishes of a much larger conflict. If you think you can make the islamic terrorists go away by pulling our forces out of Iraq, you are ill informed. They would view that as a victory, be emboldened by it and go on the attack. They actually do see this as a struggle for world dominance and will not be deterred by doveish sentiment[color]
But nobody can question whether those things are consistent with our principles? Of course, the answer is that we can, just not if we're preaching to a candidate for Prez.

coalkirk wrote:

stockingfull wrote:I love this stuff.

We invade Iraq and hang Saddam because he "gassed" some Kurds who'd tried to assassinate him and killed 5,000. Yet we don't invade Saudi Arabia after 19 of 22 9/11 terrorists came out of their anti-American culture.
Your off handed way of describing the horrible agonizing death of thousands of Kurdish women and children as "he "gassed" some Kurds" is perplexing. Those people drowned in their own saliva. Not a pretty sight. And your mantra that 19 of the 22 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia is getting old. They weren't acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia. They were recruited and trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan by OBL.

And why exactly are Hiroshima and Nagasaki sacrosanct and immune from criticism? Sure, that "full-scale atomic testing" shortened the war and prevented tens of thousands of GI (and Japanese) casualties, but those would have been military losses. Instead, we chose to incinerate 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki. Oh, and let's not forget the German cultural center of Dresden, where between 24,000 and 40,000 civilians were fried in the tactically dubious February 1945 fire-bombing.
[color=#0000FF]We were attacked by Japan. Is there no fight you think is worth it? The Japanese were cruel beyond believe to our prisoners of war. The whole country of Japan was ready to try to repel invaders and it would have been a blood bath on both sides. I'm sure it was a tough decission to make to drop those bombs but by all expert accounts I've read, it likley saved millions of lives. We were at war for our survival!!! You don't seem to understand that. It sounds like you would prefer us to line up in columns like the British did in the American revolution because that's the proper way to do war. It was kill the enemy in WWII or be killed. I contend we are in that situation now with Islam. We are at war and it's kill or be killed. It will become clearer to the more thick headed among us as time goes on and things escalate here in the US. Stepping back to look at our situation with some sense of perspective, we are in the early skirmishes of a much larger conflict. If you think you can make the islamic terrorists go away by pulling our forces out of Iraq, you are ill informed. They would view that as a victory, be emboldened by it and go on the attack. They actually do see this as a struggle for world dominance and will not be deterred by doveish sentiment[color]
But nobody can question whether those things are consistent with our principles? Of course, the answer is that we can, just not if we're preaching to a candidate for Prez.

stockingfull wrote:

coalkirk wrote:

stockingfull wrote:I love this stuff.

We invade Iraq and hang Saddam because he "gassed" some Kurds who'd tried to assassinate him and killed 5,000. Yet we don't invade Saudi Arabia after 19 of 22 9/11 terrorists came out of their anti-American culture.
Your off handed way of describing the horrible agonizing death of thousands of Kurdish women and children as "he "gassed" some Kurds" is perplexing. Those people drowned in their own saliva. Not a pretty sight. And your mantra that 19 of the 22 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia is getting old. They weren't acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia. They were recruited and trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan by OBL.

And why exactly are Hiroshima and Nagasaki sacrosanct and immune from criticism? Sure, that "full-scale atomic testing" shortened the war and prevented tens of thousands of GI (and Japanese) casualties, but those would have been military losses. Instead, we chose to incinerate 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki. Oh, and let's not forget the German cultural center of Dresden, where between 24,000 and 40,000 civilians were fried in the tactically dubious February 1945 fire-bombing.
[color=#0000FF]We were attacked by Japan. Is there no fight you think is worth it? The Japanese were cruel beyond believe to our prisoners of war. The whole country of Japan was ready to try to repel invaders and it would have been a blood bath on both sides. I'm sure it was a tough decission to make to drop those bombs but by all expert accounts I've read, it likley saved millions of lives. We were at war for our survival!!! You don't seem to understand that. It sounds like you would prefer us to line up in columns like the British did in the American revolution because that's the proper way to do war. It was kill the enemy in WWII or be killed. I contend we are in that situation now with Islam. We are at war and it's kill or be killed. It will become clearer to the more thick headed among us as time goes on and things escalate here in the US. Stepping back to look at our situation with some sense of perspective, we are in the early skirmishes of a much larger conflict. If you think you can make the islamic terrorists go away by pulling our forces out of Iraq, you are ill informed. They would view that as a victory, be emboldened by it and go on the attack. They actually do see this as a struggle for world dominance and will not be deterred by doveish sentiment[color]
But nobody can question whether those things are consistent with our principles? Of course, the answer is that we can, just not if we're preaching to a candidate for Prez.

As usual, you're completely wrong. Both Dresden and the nuke annihilations in Japan were discretionary tactical decisions to crush the enemy long after our victory was inevitable. If you don't know that victory in both of those theaters was absolutely certain by those times, take a break and crack a history book. That's precisely why all three have been the subjects of such searching ethical debate.

And the "War on Terror?" You must be joking. Every time we occupy a country, or threaten another with invasion (empty threats now, since we don't have the forces to do it), we cause the entire Muslim world to galvanize against us more and more. Because it's a movement rather than an army, it's a war we absolutely cannot win until we realize that it has to be won by returning to our principles instead of violating them even more.

coalkirk wrote:More bullshift liberal revisionist history. Victory was far from inevitable. I'd bet you can rattle off the exact number of US servicemen killled in Iraq to the minute ( I picture you with a little chalk board tally next to your computer) but I'd also bet you have no idea of the number of US servicemen killed in just the pacific battles. We lost 12,500 on Okinawa alone, 6,000 at Guadalcanal, 5,000 in the Bataan death march. Causuality estimates were widely debated for the planned invasion of the Japan islands but the number agreed on by most accounts was 500,000 to 750,000 US killed alone.

Charlie Z wrote:I agree completely with your second paragraph. I think Obama represents to many, true or not, the "old, inherent American goodness".

spc wrote:I Its ironic that the man who said there wouldn’t be a black President because of white America is the one who may ultimately bring Obama down.