LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 04-26-2007, 02:27 AM   #21
provigil

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
493
Senior Member
Default
to Jessica Lynch for telling the truth. Integrity
provigil is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 03:21 AM   #22
mygalinasoo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
410
Senior Member
Default
You forgot Finland.

Didn't Finland join the Axis in some fashion? I know they had home-grown SS units...

But this isn't Flag of our Fathers, where real heroism is being exploited for political gain.

As I said, it appears Rufus didn't watch Flags of Our Fathers...
mygalinasoo is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 05:13 AM   #23
XGoFivk7

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
It's a good thing Roosevelt didn't use propaganda during WW2 and he fought that war exactly the way the Democrats would have wanted it fought today.
XGoFivk7 is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 05:56 AM   #24
Narus63

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
383
Senior Member
Default
Wiki lists them as "co-belligerents" but not actual members of the Axis.

Close enough. At any rate, we all know the Finns were Nazis.
Narus63 is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 06:22 AM   #25
u2ZQGC6b

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
452
Senior Member
Default
Pekka is really an SS Super Sitizen.
u2ZQGC6b is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 06:52 AM   #26
LeviBrawn

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
638
Senior Member
Default
Jessica is cute
LeviBrawn is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 01:34 PM   #27
GfBTWMmV

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
431
Senior Member
Default
Why do Jessica Lynch and the Tillmans ****ing hate America?
GfBTWMmV is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 04:20 PM   #28
zlopikanikanzax

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
436
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm just conforming to the notion that just because something was done in WWII doesn't mean it was good.

Everything the Allies did in WWII was good. Everything the Axis and Sweden did in WWII was bad. I thought Sweden hid a bunch of Jews?
zlopikanikanzax is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 05:05 PM   #29
Fvmfrctt

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
421
Senior Member
Default
Obviously the "libruls are traitors" crowd is a vocal minority, and one that has gotten quieter of late (gee, I wonder why?). But it's still plenty loud, and if you don't hear it I have to wonder whether you're wearing earplugs.

However, let's put that aside and forget all that nasty stuff. Let's instead rephrase what I said as follows:

"When one suggests that something the Admin or pro-admin groups say might be propoganda, one is labeled _____."

Fill in the word of choice. Defeatist? Nicer that traitor, but along the same lines. How about fool or hack?

"Then, when it comes out that it *was* propoganda, it's all "well, duh, it's wartime, propoganda is normal."

Still works, IMO. An O, by the way, that I'm comfortable "taking flak" for.

-Arrian
Fvmfrctt is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 05:40 PM   #30
Switiespils

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
619
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by rah
So as far as I'm concerned people that are over reacting to this really are just using it as another excuse to bash the administration. No additional excuses are needed. Remember, "Mission Accomplished," and the insurgents are "desperate," "dead-enders" and "there are no more than 5,000 insurgents" and all that horseshit? The so-called surge came after more than two years of denying that the insurgent fighters in Iraq were a major issue.

Or, lets go back a bit further and remember Iraq "having enough oil to pay for their own reconstruction" (i.e. we'll take their oil and give contracts to our buddies), and becoming "a beacon of democracy" in the mideast?

It would be nice, especially for those who are still members of Bushie's Bootlicker Brigade, if this was just a case of propaganda during wartime, as opposed to just one more piece of a systemic pattern of playing so fast and loose with reality that it's not clear that our fearless leaders having a ****ing clue what's going on, or what they're even doing.

I highly doubt (in fact I'd be shocked) that making up this crap about Lynch and Tillman happened anywhere near Rumsfeld's level, or that it was directed from anywhere near that level. It just sounded good to work with, and put out to the public, so it was worked and pushed out, and the BBB (see above) did their part in pushing it out without question.

If we were anywhere near success in Iraq or Afghanistan, it'd be a trivial footnote, but administration incompetence has us heavily committed in two long-running wars against enemies who are far from defeated, with no clear success in sight, and quite likely, no clear success possible after this much ****ing up.

IMO it's not a "propaganda" issue, it's an issue of "have these dumb bastards ever had the slightest idea what's going on or the slightest ability to competently execute anything?"

I think most of the emotional reaction is wonder at if there's an end or limit to the stupidity of this administration (at least in its original form - Gates is probably 1000 times better as SecDef than Rummy), and if so, where is the limit?

(We know when, thank God, only 635 days to go! )
Switiespils is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 07:02 PM   #31
longrema

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
361
Senior Member
Default
lets see, we're stuck in 2 wars with neither "winnable" and the goal of getting our behinds out of the ME (not really our goal?) is a distant memory. We get attacked because we got troops on Muslim holy lands and now our response ensures we'll have troops all over the ME and generations of Muslims devoted to kicking our butts out.

And the BS keeps coming, McCain said we cant leave Iraq because that would be a victory for AQ in Iraq. Huh? I thought Saddam was the enemy, now we gotta stay in Iraq as long as there are people wanting to attack us? Is that really our "exit strategy"? Stay as long as people want to kill us? ****!

Getting out asap is the best thing we can do...for the Iraqis and for the "war on terror". What exactly will AQ in Iraq do if we leave? Hang around pissing Iraqis off? Or will they join the Sunni insurgents to fight the Shia? Do I care? Should I care? Seems like quite a smooth move to me - leave Iraq and leave AQ in Iraq with the problem they helped create. They want a civil war in Iraq, they got it. Now what are they going to do? Stay and fight against "democracy"?
longrema is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 07:44 PM   #32
vaalmerruutel

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
487
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Straybow
Nine-tenths of that [MtG] rant is inconsequential. It wouldn't have mattered who was calling the shots once we were there. Or do you think the Dems would have transformed Iraq into a flower garden?

Go cry in your beer, if that makes you feel better. If "It wouldn't have mattered who was calling the shots once we were there" then you're essentially saying the current situation is an inevitable result of having invaded.

And what the **** do "the Dems" have to do with anything back in 2002 and 2003? "the Dems" weren't the ones setting policy. Bush Sr. was certainly far more effective in handling the gulf war than Bush jr. has been in handling either of his.

Bush jr. chose to surround himself with ideologues who insisted that their particular worldview applied everywhere, and who were monumentally ignorant of Iraqi, Iranian and general mideast history, regional politics, ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts. Anyone with actual relevant expertise was to be avoided or minimized (Powell in the latter case), and for local "insight" Bush's cabal chose to rely on a kleptocratic exile with no credibility in-country.

The Iraqi response to the invasion and occupation and the current situation were far from inevitable, and any number of Republican leaders (past or present) could have handled the situation better. It's just typical of Bushies' Bootlickers that any criticism of the monumental incompetence of this administration is turned into a partisan issue, or else becomes a "your people would have been even worse, so our performance is not subject to question, neener neener neener."
vaalmerruutel is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 08:16 PM   #33
Thomaswhitee

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
503
Senior Member
Default
MTG, I approve of your posts in this thread.

Now do me one favor. Admit that I was right that we should not have dismissed the Iraqi army. You and I had a disagreement on this point at the time.
Thomaswhitee is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 08:24 PM   #34
blodwarttufla

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
430
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Straybow
Or do you think the Dems would have transformed Iraq into a flower garden? I think they wouldn't have ****ed up as bad. Some things would be the same, but the republican hands off let democracy and capitalism do it's thing is particularly ill suited.
blodwarttufla is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 08:33 PM   #35
Vcwdldva

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
430
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Ned
MTG, I approve of your posts in this thread.

Now do me one favor. Admit that I was right that we should not have dismissed the Iraqi army. You and I had a disagreement on this point at the time. IIRC, (it was four years ago ) I advocated dismissing the higher echelons - anyone above company level, as the higher levels were too Baathist and too cozy with the system we were trying to replace. We couldn't have managed the Iraqi army at the time, but we should have paid them to sit around and eventually to train when we had those capabilities in place.

I think the biggest occupation mistakes we made, in order of significance, were:

Failure to far more rapidly secure and neutralize ordance sites - we were fetished with hunting non-existent MWD evidence and avoiding a Kamisiyah type controversy. Instead, we had dozens of sites with essentially open season for anyone who wanted to borrow a little ordnance. That source of supply has now been supplanted, but early on, it was a primary source of supply for the original insurgents.

Failure to get people employed, even if it was *gasp* commie-FDR-New Deal-welfare state style "make work" Pay 'em and let 'em think they're rebuilding the country. High unemployment, lots of weapons, lots of pissed off military age men and foreign occupation don't mix real well. (This would include the Iraqi army issue you cited)

Insufficient consultation and engagement of local and tribal leaders, rather than an emphasis on top down decision-making and control. Let 'em be corrupt, let 'em have competing interests, but grease their palms and provide funding and materiel support for local Iraqi-run reconstruction projects, creating local government and security, etc.

Over-centralization, pork-barreling and slow implementation of infrastructure and standard of living projects. We were fetished on oil, and big projects on the scale that the Bechtels and Halliburtons of the world find appealing, when the average Iraqi would have benefited more from things like local water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment, repair and upgrade of hospitals and medical facilities, supply of basic goods and services, etc.
Vcwdldva is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 08:56 PM   #36
huerta

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
579
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Ned
But the contrast between the Civil War and the current war on the one hand, and WWI and WWII on the other, couldn't be more striking. The War of Yankee Aggression was a fairly unpopular concept from the get-go, especially when it was so badly bungled. There wasn't a whole lot of naysaying when McClellan was seven miles from the outskirts of Richmond and bringing up all those mortars and heavy artillery, but a year of slaughter and defeat after defeat in a war for which not many felt a real stake is a bit hard to swallow.

Especially when you do things like trample on the Constitution, lock up dissenting newspaper editors, and run a kleptocracy on a scale that had never been seen before.

(IIRC, the Mexican-American war was also a controversial war even at the time.) So was the occupation of the Phillipines and deployment of troops against Phillipine insurgents after the Spanish-American war.
huerta is offline


Old 04-26-2007, 09:51 PM   #37
Pedsshuth

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
457
Senior Member
Default
The point, Ogie, is that my example included being CORRECT about it (whatever it is) being propoganda, as is the case with the subject of this thread. Your example of Slaughtermeyer's 9/11 beliefs, on the other hand, doesn't fit because the evidence does not - and never has - supported his accusations.

-Arrian
Pedsshuth is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity