Saturday, August 12, 2006

Don't Feel Bad Joe

Senator Joe Lieberman was defeated in Connecticut's Democratic Party primary. Don't feel bad Joe, my former wife deserted me for someone else too and the result, at least for me, has been overwhelmingly to the good. Senator Lieberman is going to continue the good fight as an independent candidate and hopefully every Republican and centerist Democrat will vote for him in the general election in November.

I found this political cartoon over at Dr. Sanity and just had to share it with you.

A little while ago I watched a sparring match on Fox between former Senator Dennis Deconcini (Dem-Arizona) and a conservative commentator. Senator Deconcini was given the opportunity to state what the Dems would be doing different in the War on Terror, and he rose to the bait with a now predictable litany of Bush-is-the-problem talking points. Five years into this War, after waiting on a Dem's response innumerable times, two facts are very clear to me; 1. Our homeland hasn't been attacked again. 2. The Democrats have no plan. I believe the essential difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is simply this: Republicans believe that the key event at the dawn of the 21st century was the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the Democrats believe that it was the Supreme Court decision handed down in Bush v Gore on December 12, 2000 destroying their hopes of regaining the White House. Bush is determined to fight Terrorism and the Dems seem determined to fight Bush.

I'll leave you with a passage from Warfighting (Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1).

Decisionmaking is essential to the conduct of war since all actions are the result of decisions or of nondecisions. If we fail to make a decision out of lack of will, we have willingly surrendered the intiative to our foe. If we consciously postpone taking action for some reason, this is a decision. Thus, as a basis for action, any decision is generally better than no decision.

Since war is a conflict between opposing wills, we cannot make decisions in a vacuum. We must make our decisions in light of the enemy's anticipated reactions and counteractions, recognizing that while we are trying to impose our will on the enemy, he is trying to do the same to us.

Time is the critical factor in effective decisionmaking-often the most important factor. A key part of effective decisionmaking is realizing how much decision time is available and making the most of that time. In general, whoever can make and implement decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage......

I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourselves on which side of the political aisle these words and ideas resonate deeply, and on which they ring hollow at best and at worst not at all.


madtom said...

Really no plan, or I refuse to see a plan? either way funny cartoon

Yossarian said...

"....and the damned fool said to push on". We are indeed knee deep in the big muddy and Bush's plan to get out is to stay longer. You're the artist-what's wrong with this testosterone laden picture.?

mdfay said...

Dear Yossarian, In 1967 Israel defeated virtually the entire Arab world in only 6 days! At the time much of the credit was given to Israel's military prowess, but in hindsight great credit should be given to the Arab nations' nominal respect of acceptable warfighting conventions;ie, fighting under the Law of Land Warfare/Geneva Conventions as organized uniformed units of soverign nation states.

Our enemies have learned great things from this. Israel has been fighting Hizbullah now for several weeks in a rather small geographical area, and though making progress, will not achieve total annihilation of this non-nation state (unless you are willing to see them as a proxy military arm of Iran), and Law of Land Warfare/Geneva Convention non-abiding terrorist men's club (wonder if the Lions and the Rotarians are trying to buy Katyushas?)camouflaged like and hiding among the local population. Israel, like us, constrains itself and its capabilities in the face of criminal aggression and blantantly illegal warfighting tactics. The result, "knee deep in the big muddy". Things just don't take 6 days like they used to. But hey,thanks for the predictable blame it on Bush stuff, it really lends credence to everything you've got to share here at Fire and Ice.

By the way, what is your solution? More estrogen? Maybe Cinday Sheehan and a battalion of Code Pinkers should be sent over to talk Hisbullah into becoming Herbullah and let Israel, and by extension Western civilization, alone. But the truth is that you and many like you want soft answers to hard intractable problems. You want soft sand to stick your heads into. The answer lies metaphorically in more, and not less testosterone. You and your ilk have shown us time and again that you have little stomach (unless armchair quarterbacking, naysaying and second guessing are now equal to actually doing something)for peseverance, going the distance, or hanging in there. Sorry the war wasn't over by the time Monday night football rolled around again. You want to know what's wrong with this picture? Look in the mirror.

Now excuse me while I go about my day with this testosterone addled brain of mine.

mdfay said...

Madtom, I would find myself well disposed towards a Democratic Party sponsored "plan" if said plan was in direct response to the activities of our enemy (which is NOT Bush et al),and embued with decisive and courageous actions. To my mind the Dem plans are merely politically expedient knee-jerk reactions to Bush initiatives heavy on re-statements of the obvious and empty rhetoric. I want to hear IDEAS in response to what the terrorists, our enemy are doing...ideas "in light of the enemy's anticipated reactions and counteractions..." As long as Dem plans are prefaced and heavily footnoted with negative critiques of Bush, and lightly referenced to the very real activities of the enemy they will ring hollow in my ears.

Beverly said...

I don't know what drew me back to your blog today, but I appreciate your stand and opinions. I wish I were where I could vote for Joe. There aren't too many in Florida who are making any statements worth standing up for.

mdfay said...

Beverly, thanks for stopping by. I find it interesting time and again that folks equate the second guessing of someone willing to do something with actually taking a stand for something. The Dems have yet to think outside the box of hatred for Bush with regards to the War on Terror. In fact, if you took a poll most of us would probably say they don't even think we're at war at all. We know what the Dems are against, but what are they for that doesn't have some anti-Bush sentiment tatooed on it?

Does anyone seriously believe that our enemy is loosing one nano-second of sleep over the possiblity of the Dems being back in power? There is no doubt in my mind that they rejoice at the prospect. And well they should. This is the gang who, when Sudan offered him up gave Osama bin Laden the pass, who stood by wringing their hands while 500,000 Rwandans were slaughtered, who failed to answer the first attack on the World Trade Center in '93 and the USS Cole attack in 2000, who want to hobble our intelligence activities in the name of belly-button gazing and obsessing over non-existent loss of privacy issues, who at the first sign of tough times want to cut and run and who forward presidential candidates who "vote for things before they vote against the same things". Warfighting is about decisionmaking, will and keeping a proactive eye on the ball. The Dems/libs/progressives, whatever label you want to use, have a long way to go before their standing for something actually translates into timely action, especially when it comes to fighting the War on Terrorism and confronting Islamofacsism.

madtom said...

The one problem I see with the Bush administration is that even though we can agree on one thing, WOT, we disagree on the other 99. Christian Nationalism is as I see it a threat to American that is , if not equal too, approaching the threat we face from the Islamo fascist. I sometime find it hard to separate the to, as they would seem to have the same goals in mind for the american public. A faith based policy that is devoid of reason and science. The world is 6000 years old club is as much a threat to the US, and our future as the enemy. And yes we see an enemy, not just Bush, but we want to fight fascism everywhere we find it, foreign or domestic.

I really believe that its just a straw man to believe that the democrats would not fight the war, we have history on our side, we fought wwii and the cold war. Why would anyone think that this war is different, or harder. If you look around you'll see that the current administrating had dropped the ball on many fronts, just look at their behavior in the current conflict in Israel. What do you think, this cease fire will work? You think Hizbollah will behave, or that the new UN force with 15000 French troops will in fact be able to coerce hizbollah to give up their weapons? Stay the course, even if it leads off a cliff is not a strategy, it a suicide pack with the branch dividians

Anonymous said...

Fear of Christian Nationalism is really just fear-mongering by the National Socialist Democrats who wish to enforce purified totalitarian ideology upon free-will. The National Socialist Democrats did the same thing using the Judeo-Christians back in the 1930's. Indoctrinate, indoctrinate, indoctrinate. Hey they even managed to change the word Christmas into Yuletide and banned all Christmas carols from being sung at school. Sound familiar, MAD TOM?

MadTom does your fear of Christian Nationals also apply to Judson Memorial Church the one in Greenwich Village NYC minstered by Peter Laarman and where the Left disguised as a religious institution politically activates 'social justice' on the tax-payer's dime? Or is it just against the Other who does not agree with same-sex union between a man and a woman?

Look deep inside yourself MadTom, seek the truth as to who is really the fascist, if you dare.

There is a reason why the 1st Amendment states 'freedom of religion' and not 'from religion'; so that the collective state and paranoid Socialist madpeople can never dictate any one religion/no religion upon everyone.

Sorry to waste your bandwidth on this topic but I cannot understand how it is possible to equate American Christians whose greatest threat is the boycott with Militant Islam who riots/burns/ torches over a cartoon, publically hangs homosexuals in the public square, accuse and kill women for having been raped, and who enslave Christans and kill Jews. MadTom, there is absolutely NO evidence to make such a statement or to promote such fear.

Like I tell my 'gay' aquaintances here in NYC, if you are ever faced with anything remotely appearing as the 'theocratchrister's gulgag for gays' I personally will a lead a gang of freedom fighters to set you free. Got it!

mdfay said...

Madtom, Let me first quote you:
"Christian Nationalism is as I see it a threat to America that is , if not equal too, approaching the threat we face from the Islamo fascist." Get a freak'n grip son. I live in a town where there is a Christian church of every possible conservative denomination on almost every corner...Fredericksburg, Virginia. This is the same town where the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by bunch of very white landed Christian gentry. I have no fear of ever being the subject of a Christian-fascist terror bombing, murder plot or political coupe. However, a few years ago we did have a couple of Islamic nut jobs, the Beltway Snipers, taking pot shots at folks here...their first victim was severely wounded at the Michael's Arts and Crafts I go to for supplies, and another killed at an Exxon on Rt 1 I regularly fill up at.

However I'd love to hear one concrete, not hypothetical, example of Christian-fascism that has terrorized you.

Laurie said...

Must have been those people handing out pamphlets advertising the tent meeting. Maybe they were singing hymns off key and it traumatized him.

Yossarian said...

Mike-It ain't about how long it's taking, it's about the legitimacy of the war. You know that this p[reemptive war agains a non threat is illegal on it's face. You havee read the Constitution and taken an oath to defend it. Well Bush and his handlers violated their oath, and you know it. I hope to see them brought to justice for sacrificing 2500 beautiful men and women on the alter of testosterone. As for Cindy Sheehan, she too has read the Constitution and sacrificed for it. And she understands it. She will make a fine President. By the way, you may be a fine Marine, and I know you are, but you are no match for Cindy, the Raging Grandmas and Code Pink. So, even though you are now neck deep in the big muddy, keep your charcoal dry and remember what that great philosopher Kenny Rogers cautioned " gotta know when to fold....."

madtom said...

As evidence #1 Veto of the Stem cell bill.
How many people will that one stroke of the "almighty" pen kill, or condemn to a life of misery?

Iran need to get nukes to try and compare. did I say try, I meant use their nukes.

madtom said...

I live in a town where there is a Christian church of every possible conservative denomination on almost every corner...Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Chances are they are as scared of the Christian Nationalist as I am. Mind you I capitalized Christian Nationalist for a reason, Maybe I should have used "" marks as well. I did not say that I was afraid of Christians, conservatives or otherwise. You would think the more "conservative" of the bunch would be appalled with Bush.

Here is a link Christian Nationalist

This is the same town where the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by bunch of very white landed Christian gentry.

Which would have rejected this current crowd out of hand as they did on the day this was written:

" Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363) "

I have no fear of ever being the subject of a Christian-fascist terror bombing, murder plot or political coupe.

You may not, but there are plenty of us out here that are worried, we see people rewriting history, and ask ourselves , why?

You have that Coulter going around telling people that sectarianism is a religion, that "the theory of evolution" is a religious belief. Which is of course an all out lie. Or how about the "War on Christmas". You are aware I hope that not all Christian even celebrate Christmas.

What purpose does it serve?

There are only a few conclusions that we come to. They have a plan. I say be afraid be very afraid, your denomination may not make the final cut onto the officially sanctioned list.

Anonymous said...

Veto of tax-payer funded stem cell research is evidence of Christian Nationalism?

What about the irrational assupmtion that government funded stem cell research will someday be the cure-all cure to all human ailment. It's like expecting me to believe that lead can magically be turned to gold if the government would just put enough money into the research.

If there is some truth that a stem-cell cure-all is possible and knowing that disgarded embryos are dirt cheap why would not private industry jump on the bandwagon. After all stem-cells might one day raise people from the dead. Maybe the laws of sound economics has concluded that a stem-cell cure-all is a complete hoax.

Stem cell voodoo junk sci-fi cure-all crap reminds me of Valclav Havel:

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it."

It's a free country MAdTom and if you sincerely believe in the magic stem cell cure-all put your own money where your mouth is and invest in those companies around the world who are wasting their financial resources and time on a bunch of junk science but, do not demand that I be forced into funding such a program. It's bad enough that my tax dollars go to funding man-made global warming myth, I don't want want to be a part of a conspiracy which offers false hope to people who deserve better than to believe that Government is one day going to make them rise from their chairs and walk if we just gave them enough money to research a cure which will never come.

The Government has thus far spent billions and decades on a cure for AIDS when a .50C condom will do the trick. Think I want to sell false and irrational hope again. No I don't.


Anonymous said...

Oh and MadTom, last Christmas I went to the post office to buy stamps to sent my holiday cards. My choices were the Hannakkah stamp, the Eid stamp, the Kwanza stamp and the Holiday cookie stamp.

Again, please provide evidence that the Government a secretly a facsist Christian theocracy when it doesn't even recognize it by name at the Government funded US Post Office?

Anonymous said...

And another thing...when the Government begins imposing a higher tax rate for all non-National Christians then you may have evidence but thus far the only religious institition demanding higher tax rates on the Other are those who have the progressive faith in National Socialist Democrats, the same group which white-washed the word 'Christ' out of it's vocabulary.

And under the 1st amendemnt there can be no one religion. Don't worry about the National Christians because the Constitution is protecting you. However I would encourage you to worry about those judges who are ursurping the very constitution protecting you. Example is the very ill-liberal Roe vs Wade in which a law of the land was imposed by judical fiat without a single vote of the people. Not one individual American citizen was allowed to express their individual vote on a law which effects everyone not just females. Personally I consider Liberalism was destroyed the day Roe vs Wade was imposed. But that's me...I'm a individual liberal Woman not a feminist.


countrygirl said...

What the heck? You post a rational and articulate statement (with a dang funny cartoon) and these obfuscationists come out of the woodwork to depress the rest of us? Where do they come from?

"I find it interesting time and again that folks equate the second guessing of someone willing to do something with actually taking a stand for something." Amen, MD Fay! Haven't heard it said better yet. I'm so glad we have some folks left with the testosterone to make decisions and then act on them! Decisions for the good of ALL of us!
Thank you, and all who stand with you.

madtom said...

There was not single vote to end segregated schools either. Aren't you worried that your tax dollars are being wasted on all those non whites out there. Maybe we should have a vote. I wonder sometimes if these people understand the role of the SCOTUS. You don't need a vote when the establish law, " the constitution" already grants someone a right, yet that right is still denied.

You know for a fact that the right wing knows all to well that the constitution grants homosexuals their rights, or they would not be all for an amendment.

And for all of you looking for a Christmas Stamp, but are frustrated because someone told you that the grinch stole Christmas, get a life. If someone lie to you and you just accept it, whose fault is that.

Yossarian said...

"However I'd love to hear one concrete, not hypothetical, example of Christian-fascism that has terrorized you."

How about Tim McVey and the Oklahoma City bombing?

madtom said...

I guess this is where the "Holiday Cookies" myth came from, amazingly enough I think this is the same source for the "War on Christmas" myth.

Now who would have guessed. My only suggestion is to change the channel, before they take that option away from you.

mdfay said...

Timothy McVeigh was obsessed, much like yourself Yossarian, with imagined violations against the Constitution by our federal government. Christianity had little if anything to do with his act of anti-government terrorism, for which he was captured,tried, convicted and executed. I realize facts are sometimes inconvenient, but try using them occassionally....alas, you won't be as entertaining but we'll manage. The thing about Cindy Sheehan for President was a hoot.

At any rate, sarcasm aside, my hat off to you for your unfailing civility in the tone of your comments.

Anonymous said...


I don't watch O'Reilly but I did walk into my NYC US Post Office in 2005 (note date on Madonna/Christ child stamp was issued) to purchase stamps and what was advertised before me was the Holiday Cookie stamps. No advertisement of the Madonna/Christ child though they were probably sold. I saw the same thing when I visted my family for the holidays in Albuquerque, NM.

My point is your fear of a one-religion theocray to me seem paranoid because when I walk into a Government-operated institution marketing other religions during a time dominantly held by Christians celebrating the birth of Christ, ie Eid, Kwannza and Hanukkah stamps along side holiday cookie stamps I do question these actions not Coulter's words, a right-ringer whose books I have not read. Rather nuanced I agree but nuance I've read is rather important.

As for gay-marriage argument all I can say is that I fell for the feminist abortion argument for most of my life then I turned 40 five years ago and learned that everything I was told about feminist rights and its relation to the constitution was based on lies and emotional blackmail.

It is because of my experience with the feminist movement and its agenda that I question gay agenda motives. Ms. Camille Paglia makes a very convincing case against the motivations behind the gay agenda and its insistance in indoctrinating the culture into believing same-sex union between a man and a woman is normal to nature.

The Dalai Lama, Ms. Paglia and Christians have one theme common to their beliefs, that being, the purpose of sex is to reproduce and by the very nature of the act same-sex activity is not the normal to nature. I am not against homosexuals and their activities but I will resist the indoctrinated idea that I must believe abnormal is normal and am a bad person for not accepting it.

If anything I have come to see through my own life experience that the actions made by those of Christian belief are far better equipt to survive Western culture's suicide attempt. Especially today as a barbaric and anti-liberal ideology sweeping the planet is breeding three replacements to our every one.

While we over-populate our culture with aging entitlement-driven utopianists, the enemy is breeding 14th century warriors who have no problem strapping bombs on their bodies to blow-up people dancing in a night-club.

Call it survival instincts to not allow myself to be enamormed by feel-good policies which are extremely destructive when I have experienced and witnessed how destructive those feel-good policies are; it's like sticking my hand into the fire yet somehow surprised that it hurts. Been burned too many times.

madtom said...

Look I am not a gay activist or anything, nor is this post the correct forum for this discussion, but I find I have to respond to correct the record. Gay sex is prevalent in nature, Butterflies elephants, penguins, and humans all display homosexual behavior.

Synova said...

I suppose this isn't the forum to debate gay marriage... for the record I support it as marriage is the primary unit of non-government social welfare. I don't know why people form the attachments they do, but stable attachments are a good thing and should be encouraged.

It's not necessary to decide if homosexuality is "normal" or not.

I don't know who is afraid of Christian Nationalism but the cure for it is to encourage rather than discourage religious expression in the public square. Leave the crosses and displays alone. Leaving them provides the moral suasion to maintain the same rights of expression for others. Removing them removes the moral suasion because people can rightly say that the same standards should be applied to all.

Now what was the post about? Oh, yeah, testosterone. Not very popular these days in some quarters.

"talk Hisbullah into becoming Herbullah"

Herbullah... omg. LOL!

Bag Blog said...

I'm kind of a countrygirl myself. Here I was enjoying the post and cartoon on Joe thinking I would read comments on the same subject. But no, I got blind-sided by the "Christian Nationalism". What's up with that? Then we move on to talk of gays and cookie stamps when I thought we were going to be talking about someone who finally had the heuvos to make a decision and stick with it.

By the way, Madtom, you either need a comma between butterflies and elephant or you are talking about some strange new species (which does sound a bit gay). Where I come from if a bull does not act like a bull, he becomes a steer and eventually dinner.

madtom said...

"Where I come from if a bull does not act like a bull, he becomes a steer and eventually dinner.

Thank you for confirming my point from a first hand perspective, but somehow I really don't think the beef industry will be very appreciative.

"What's for Dinner" all of a sudden had a different ring to it.

Yossarian said...

more terror evidence-


Violent protests, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism started in the early 1970's in the U.S. Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be the acts of religiously-motivated criminals acting alone. However, recent cases involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that perpetrators appear to be sheltered by a network of sympathizers.

In recent years, the term "anti-abortion" has been used to identify individuals and groups which employ violence and murder to attain their political ends. They are differentiated from the vastly larger "pro-life" movement which rejects violence against persons and property. Both the pro-life and anti-abortion movements are motivated by one concept: that human personhood begins at the instant of conception. From this principle, it naturally follows that a newly fertilized ovum, an embryo and a fetus are all human persons who should be granted the same rights, privileges and protections as a child or adult. Some view an abortion clinic as the ethical equivalent of a Nazi death camp.

The pro-choice movement generally teaches that the fetus becomes a human person later in gestation, when it loses its neck structures which resemble gill slits, when it loses its tail, when it begins to look human, is viable, is born, or at some other transition point between conception and birth. From this viewpoint, a woman's access to a safe and affordable early abortion is viewed as a human right.

Level of violence and harassment at abortion clinics
One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings." 1

Many pro-choice individuals and groups blame these criminal acts on the most violent extremists in the pro-life movement. Some believe that the violent rhetoric heard from pro-lifers motivates the more radical pro-life fringe to resort to violence.
Many pro-life individuals and groups blame the violence on groups which are quite separate from the pro-life movement -- people who have little regard for human life.

The National Abortion Federation reports "Incidents of Violence and Disruption Against Abortion Providers" in the U.S. and Canada. 3 Their data for the past 16 years is shown below. The number of incidents of picketing is also shown:

Murders, Attempted Murders Bombing, Arson, Attempted Bombing or Arson Invasion, Assault & Battery, Vandalism, Trespassing, Death Threats, Burglary, Stalking... Hate Mail, Harassing Phone Calls, Bomb Threats... Arrests Made at Blockades Number of Blockades Number of Incidents of Picketing
1989 0 11 66 51 12358 201 72
1990 0 14 60 32 1363 34 45
1991 2 10 83 157 3885 41 292
1992 0 32 221 1481 2580 83 2898
1993 2 20 430 650 1236 66 2279
1994 12 15 143 395 217 25 1407
1995 1 16 142 296 54 5 1356
1996 1 9 102 618 65 7 3932
1997 2 16 205 2908 29 25 7518
1998 3 10 127 946 16 2 8402
1999 0 10 326 1685 5 3 8727
2000 1 5 209 1031 0 4 8478
2001 0 5 7901 435 0 2 9969
2002 0 1 265 302 0 4 10241
2003 0 3 140 331 0 10 11244
20042 0 2 40 130 0 4 3445


Includes 554 Anthrax hoaxes.
Partial data for 2004, as of 2004-SEP-16.

Thanks for the compliment Mike. I must say, three things we have in common are our love of country, our military service, and our obsessiveness. I know your daughter will love Shippensburg and, hopefully, have some good liberal professors. The next time you go to Shippensburg stop in Knute's and ask for Scrappy.

Anonymous said...

Considering the pro-abortion movement's propensity to hype their numbers (the # of back-alley abortions over-hyped) and fabricate lies (Roe was never raped) when attempting to defend its pollicies I have little respect for anything stated by National Abortion Federation and et al.

I do have respect for the law and have no doubt that those who have instigated violent acts against abortionists are either in jail or have a heavy price on their heads.

Either way the abortionists are still protected under the law while those aborted are not.

Bag Blog said...

Poor Madtom, not only do you live in fear, you have no sense of humor.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that madtom and all you other historically challenged liberals take a look at WWII and the motivation behind the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I would also suggest that you take time to read some books about the ensuing battles in the Pacific.

Iwo Jima claimed thousands of brave Marines in only 36 days. Japanese forces on the island were there to fight to the death. Their duty was to kill at least ten Marines before they were killed themselves. Ask any surviving Marine who fought on Iwo about how the Japanese fought. They will tell you that they fought dirty compared to all civilized notions of a fair fight.

The Emperor and military leaders in Japan thought that Americans wouldn't have a taste for this kind of war. They thought that once word got home - to the American people - of how many Marines were being slaughtered, America would sue for an immediate peace. Sound familiar? Get the sentiment at home against the war and the enemy wins.

Thank God for "The Bomb," or our brave men would have been fighting an impossible fight on Japan's mainland - where, not only men, but women and children had been taught and trained to die for their country. How would the media of today have portrayed that one- Our Soldiers and Marines having to kill or be killed even if it meant killing (not so innocent)women and children?! Sound familiar?

These terrorists have studied American history better than most leading Democrats-not to mention the majority of are so-called educated voting class.

Thank God that our country had the testicular fortitude to press on during those dark days of February - March 1945. Thank God there was more of a sense of national pride back then - knowing how we had to defend ourselves (and win) AFTER we had been attacked. Thank God we had leaders who weren't afraid to make a decision and press on toward the goal. Thank God that we raised a generation of great young men who didn't let fear of death stop them from defending America and American values. They knew that defeating the enemy was the only chance of America's moral and cultural survival.

The only thing that has changed is the aggressors face - the motivation is the same- destroy American culture/Judeo-Christian values. Unfortunately, Americans have changed as well - thanks to our educational system having been taken over by liberal, American hating, fanatics!

madtom said...

To Anonymous.

This might come as a shock to your narrow view of the world, But I am not against the war, the invasion of Iraq, the fight against terror, much less America. I know it's hard to believe that someone could support America, any yet blasphemy Ayatollah Bush. Our true savoir, but it's true

I don't know, I guess your the historian, but could you tell me why it's taking Bush longer to wipe up a few ragheads, than it did fight the entire WW II campaign. Can you explain why there were more Marines on Iwo Jima that all of Iraq and Afghanistan, can you explain why at the time we employed overwhelming force, attack all the enemies supply lines, cut off any supplies arriving from their allies, and went for their throats, as compared to today's fly paper strategy of putting a small force in an urban environment and waiting for the enemy to come to us.

Maybe it's not the liberals that need a history lesson.

madtom said...

Oh and I almost forgot my history, But I remember reading, mind you I was not even born, about a congress that held hearing, that called in generals, corporals, sectaries, privates everyone and anyone that had something to say. A congress that fought corruption cronyism, and fraud during the war and reconstrution.

How can you compare to today's do nothing, see nothing, hear nothing congress?

Anonymous said...

Who has the narrow view?

There is a conspiracy around every corner isn't there, Tom?

Anonymous said...

Madtom, here is a little something you can look up - since we are on the subject of history. Tell me where in the Constitution it states the term "separation of church and state"?

I will help you out . . . It doesn't.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof."

That means that I can worship when ever and where ever I choose - including in a public school room. I am pretty sure that our government has never pursued a "convert of die" policy in the name of Judeo/Christian values. How you can even compare Islamo-fascism with American Christianity shows me your level of open mindedness. Your belief system seems to have been built upon fear and ignorance.

p.s. Who mentioned anything about worshipping George Bush (I am not even a big fan of his). Nice assumption, though. Just in case your wondering . . .I only have one Lord and Savior and his name is Christ Jesus.

Laurie said...

"I don't know, I guess your the historian, but could you tell me why it's taking Bush longer to wipe up a few ragheads, than it did fight the entire WW II campaign."

I'm not a historian, but I don't ever remember hearing that the Japanese wore civilian clothes, and hid among the civilian population, and hid ammunition in schools and churches, and killed their own people on purpose. I think maybe it would be obvious that this is why it takes longer to "wipe up a few ragheads" as you put it.

madtom said...


I hope I put the term "ragheads" in quotation marks as it's not a word I use, I was trying to make a point about underestimating our enemy in this war. You summarized the guerrilla tactics, my question is, are our tactics countering theirs, and have those tactic proven themselves on this battle field to be effective?
I put the question here, as this is a milblog run by someone training in command. He has posted quotes from the manual on decision making on the battle field, I wonder what else that manual might have to say about the situation we find ourselves in today.

There is an argument out there that the goal of our actions is to destabilize the entire region using internal sectarian rivalries. Sort of starting a fire and hoping that the embers spread over the tree tops to burn down the forest. Then we would come in and do the clean up and replanting. Not that something like that can't work, but are we really ready for the consequence.

Another question I have is if we are to chose, don't we need some information with which to make that choice?
Or is it a leap of faith? If that is the choice I will be voting the other guy every time.

madtom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
countrygirl said...

Okay, I don't pretend to be an intellectual, or an historian, but I am an American and proud of it, and I vote, and I try to understand what everybody's saying, and ... and ... and ... I DON'T GET IT!!!!!
madtom, what IS your point?!?!? Are you really trying to persuade those of us who read (and appreciate and enjoy) Michael Fay's thoughts on this blog of something? If so, stand up and state your case clearly, please. I'm tired of trying to figure out just what it is you're griping about!
Thank you,

Anonymous said...

It is impossible for those away from the levers of power to offer a plan that sounds structured, given that they will have to simple adapt the best answer that they can devise on being handed the power to act.
If you cannot see bad management and lack of planning in Iraq, can you say Katrina?

EdoRiver said...

maybe you folks don't know about this. So I thought I would share it with youn early 1973, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Creighton Abrams received some bad news from the service's chief of criminal investigations.

An internal inquiry had confirmed an officer's widely publicized charge that members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade had tortured detainees in Vietnam.

But there was a silver lining: Investigators had also compiled a 53-page catalog of alleged discrepancies in retired Lt. Col. Anthony B. Herbert's public accounts of his war experiences.

"This package … provides sufficient material to impeach this man's credibility; should this need arise, I volunteer for the task," wrote Col. Henry H. Tufts, commander of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division.

Now, declassified records show that while the Army was working energetically to discredit Herbert, military investigators were uncovering torture and mistreatment that went well beyond what he had described.

The abuses were not made public, and few of the wrongdoers were punished."

Of course I wasn't there. I didn't see any of this. So I can choose not to believe what makes me feel uncomfortable, or clashes with my preconceived opinions about what is true and what isn't. Basically that means that I am right 99% of the time and you are wrong.xx% of the time, unless you agree with me, and then you are right (even if I later prove to be wrong ;-)

Laurie said...

Gotta love the copy/paste.

Anonymous said...

"Republicans believe that the key event at the dawn of the 21st century was the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the Democrats believe that it was the Supreme Court decision handed down in Bush v Gore on December 12..."

Is it really that hard to imagine that someone might not think of 9/11 as the key event at the dawn of the 21st century?

Isn't it possible we might come to think of (say) the fall of the Berlin wall or when the time when the world population hit 6 billion (forshadowing a century of crippling global overpopulation)? Or perhaps the invasion of Iraq (which triggers a century of endless gurella warfare in the middle east)? Or something completely unrelated that will happen in two years?

Or perhaps this century is going to have a more-or-less uneventful dawning? (pop quiz: name the key event at the dawn of the 20th century)

Anyways, this is all merely to say this: you are sure 9/11 is the most signifigant thing - I can see how you might argue that. Can you see that others might not be completely convinced? Is that position *that* insane?