The American Spectator

Bill L.| 4.6.09 @ 6:29AM

Mr. Homnick's track record is superior, but he surpasses himself with this submission. Excellent work indeed. My thanks for some needed clear sight.

Deborah| 4.6.09 @ 7:02AM

A sign at one Tea Party rally read: "The cure for 1984 is 1776." I thought of that slogan after reading the first paragraph of Mr. Homnick's. Obama is one scary dude. Between his saying one thing and meaning another and trying to disarm and underfund the military -- one does wonder who he is actually working for?

Is it his life's mission to take this country down? And, as Mr. Homnick so pithily states: "Turning a cheek is one thing, but turning a back is another matter entirely. Turn your back on your enemies and you turn your back on the world. "

What world does this president live in? It doesn't seem to be the world of reality. I'm afraid we'll all suffer when reality once again intrudes upon the country in some horrendous form. Great column, Mr. Homnick.

Jay| 4.6.09 @ 7:39AM

After listening to President Obama and witnessing his continuing lurches to the radical left I now believe that the entire left in this country and indeed, the world, exists in a separate, parallel world.

In that world one can have meaningful negotiations with insane people and murderous nations like North korea and Iran. In their world working people can, year after year, be robbed of their wages in ever increasin amounts to benefit those who do not work and contribute nothing to our society.

In their world our constitution is some sort of a ephemeral guideline that can be used or abrogated as the left sees fit. When it suits their purpose it can be followed, when it doesn't, we'll just use someone else's laws.

The United States is careening towards disaster. Disaster on a spectacular scale. It is, in my mind a near certainty that five year palns, ala the Soviets and Cuba will begin in this administration's first term. Our economy is now under the opressive thumb of a bunch of economic ignorati who will the capitalist system.

I predict that before 2015 a nuclear weapon will be set off here in the lower 48 states, and terrifyingly, the radical left government will do nothing, Nothing at all, save for "hunt" for who did it.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Iaidoka| 4.6.09 @ 7:50AM

Is anyone really surprised by Obama's speech?

Really?

Deborah| 4.6.09 @ 7:57AM

As Ronald Reagan said (and is pointed to as a prelude to Senator DeMint's column today), "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction."

It must be fought for in every generation as well. This is our fight. Obama and his acolytes sleep through our destruction or are happily awake as they tear the country down. Not sure which it is, but judging from some comments at this website -- ignorance is the reason (willful or otherwise). My husband has a saying -- "Too bad ignorance isn't painful." The only problem with that saying is that it is painful, but for the wrong people.

This is the change worth fighting against.

stu.b.con| 4.6.09 @ 8:01AM

No surprises here, either from the obamatard's speech nor his designated troll little davey matthews' purely predictable response. Little davey, what is your point in this forum? It clearly is not to have an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions. No, you just spew your little hate speeches and ad hominem insults. Here's an idea to chew on...ahhhh why do I waste my time...

Deborah| 4.6.09 @ 8:05AM

Let's see there's ignorance and then there's stupidity. Both are in great display here.

JJ JR| 4.6.09 @ 8:24AM

Y'all,

Just another reminder not to respond to David Mathews who's a sminar trained liberal troll assigned to confuse and distort the dialogue here at TAS.

fred| 4.6.09 @ 8:27AM

Obama was very clear in his positions on Defense:

"Peace through weakness"

"Peace through appeasment"

"Love your enemies, disdain your allies"

"Speak softly, and then speak a little louder, that will scare your enemies'

"It is better to be loved than feared"

Obama probably never has fired a weapon in his life. Got into a fight. Had a life and death experience where he had to make a real decision.
This guy is First Wimp of the United States .
I have two sons and a daughter who served in the army ( Iraq). I have a son who served in Afghanistan ( Special Operations Airborne).My sons and daughter know more about life and death than obama ever will.
Obama's naivity is truly amazing.

P. Aaron| 4.6.09 @ 8:29AM

Mathews, it seems needs a blog, one where his opinions will stand resolute; alone. Dude, head to 'Blogger.com' and leave this place.

Your history is lacking; Truman was a Democrat, Iwo Jima and Okinawa cost nearly 70,000 American casualties, because the Japanese fought to the death. A march on the Japanese mainland was not something the American military, nor Washington wanted.
The Communist North Vietnamese killed more of their own citizens.
And finally, without regard to any factual data, you insult anyone here with a differing opinion. Once again displaying not a congent counter-argument, but a desire only to be heard.

If there was actually some wisdom, or any sense of historical reference within your commentary, you might actually make a point, rather than an ass of yourself.

Darin| 4.6.09 @ 8:39AM

Mr. Matthews,
Your "world without nuclear weapons" is a nice fantasyland. How, exactly, do you propose to ensure it exists? By definition, it would require the complete elimination of ALL nuclear power plants (materials from those plants can be used to make a "dirty" nuclear bomb). If you can't ensure that China, North Korea, etc. will eliminate ALL their nuclear weapons, it is extremely naive to believe America eliminating it's nuclear arsenal is a good thing. The threat of retaliation is indeed an effective deterrent when dealing with nation-states (terrorists are another matter).

Conservatives don't "love war," but they realize it is often necessary. If atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, consider the alternative. Japanese soldiers had already proven they would rather die than surrender (reference numerous island campaigns in the Pacific), so an invasion would have been extremely costly in lives. Any blockade of Japan would have led t0 Stalingrad-like starvation, except on a national level. Conventional warfare may have led to Japan's eventual surrender, but only after how many years and at what cost?

The words of John Stuart Mills come to mind. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

James Pawlak| 4.6.09 @ 8:43AM

Read and learn Mr. B. H. Obama!
Allen, Thomas B. & Polmar, Norman

Code Name Downfall: The Secret Plan To Invade Japan and Why Truman Dropped The Bomb
Simon & Schuster; New York

Turk| 4.6.09 @ 8:47AM

Mathews is one of a cadre provided by the left to seek out sites and publications like Spectator and poison the discussion with their one world hate for the concept of America. Debating filth like them serves no purpose. Observe how this leftist seeks to dominate the conversation between us with his inane filibusters.

Richard Craig| 4.6.09 @ 9:01AM

The American people are not to blame for this disaster that is Obama. We can thank the Republican party first and foremost for rolling over, giving up, and offering up the tepid candidate of John McLame. Secondly, the media made sure that Barrack would be our next president. To the degree that Americans didn't do their own homework before voting, we can be blamed for that but the combination of the media lovefest and star struck ignorance of Obama's true self and the Republican collapse was a powerful event hard to overcome.

we are in real trouble and the economic mess is only the tip of the iceberg. This is the WRONG leader to have in these times and the future will bear that out. Get ready for the worst case scenarios to become reality before this guys leaves office.

Darin| 4.6.09 @ 9:02AM

Mr. Mathews,
Still waiting for your plan to ensure no one has any nuclear material or weapons available. By all means, please bless us with your obvious insight and wisdom so we can make the world a safer place. I'm more than willing to give you some time to come up with something workable. Say a couple centuries.

If conservatives are such "colonials," why does Canada still exist as a separate country? A true colonial (or imperialist) would have conquered our neighbor to the north long ago. If the war in Iraq was "all about oil," why did we not take measures to secure the associated facilities/pipelines? The military is perfectly capable of controlling anything they are told to control, particularly when it is such a defined, tangible asset. And what acts of "genocide" have conservatives ever committed? Specifics required.

Big J| 4.6.09 @ 9:10AM

Fred,

Thank your sons and your daughter for me. They are truly Patriots.

Also, please apologize for the ignorance of the American people who voted for this fool, as they now call this coward "boss". I don't think the 60+ million were all ignorant fools like DM, but mostly ignorant, none the less.

I feel most sorry for the men and women in uniform. They are putting their lives on the line for our freedoms while the politicians in Washington constantly bash them, and the president trashes the very country they are fighting for.

God bless our troops.

1Freeman| 4.6.09 @ 9:14AM

I see David Mathews, a paid shill for the liberal party, is back at his job of trolling conservative boards. He took the weekend off, returning to posy early this morning.
Troll, go away. We know who you are.

jack| 4.6.09 @ 9:21AM

These are truly dangerous times and unfortunately we have a peacenik from the 60s as president.
This bumbling fool offered up our missile defense system to the Russians in exchange for help with Iran. Doesnt he realize Russia and Iran are in cahoots? Russia loves the misery Iran and terrorists wreaking on us. It also means if these lunatics are fighting the US they are not fighting the Russians. Of course Obama and his gang of nimrods have no idea what is going on.
Why are all Democrats against a missile defense system that works?
If Korea has missile technology its only a matter of time before Iran or some terrorist group buys it from them. This weekends launch was an advertisement to the worlds rogue nations and terrorists. And Obama announces he wants to disarm the US? This guy besides being a complete moron on economics, ignorant of all US and World history is a hippie

TennesseeVolunteer| 4.6.09 @ 9:23AM

Don't y'all find it interesting that Obama and his administration treat people who work and pay taxes as the enemy and treat people who behead us and take advantage of us as friends?

Joan M| 4.6.09 @ 9:30AM

To all commentors:

By addressing ANYTHING to DM gives him a platform. DON'T DO IT!! Watch!!He will even respond to this!! He can't help himself. He's the left's Manchurian Candidate.

LogicalUS| 4.6.09 @ 9:34AM

What must it be like to be as stupid as David Mathews? Does anyone think he actually allows his uninformed stupidity out when he is among his family and neighbors? Or is he like his "messiah" simply reading prepared statements fed to him for his welfare check?

Wonder if he has any idea what "bushido" means?

BellaMia| 4.6.09 @ 9:39AM

Nobel prize winner John Nash's game theory predicts that all countries who are able will eventually end up with nuclear weapons because to not have them is to risk devastation by those who do. Maybe liberals have never been exposed to game theory.

Kra| 4.6.09 @ 9:54AM

Let's send the Gitmo "detainees" to live with the person who identifies himself here as "David Mathews". He seems to support these liberal ideas. Let's see if he lives it.

Nick in Virginia| 4.6.09 @ 9:56AM

David Matthews has not expressed a single fact regarding the beliefs of conservatives. He has just spewed hatred, with accusations and opinions that don't hold up to even the slightest analysis.

If you were to call him a hatemonger, he would get all huffy and just come back with something like "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you". That's about the level of intelligence of his posts here, and I see no reason to assume he would be any different in person.

I can only assume he gets paid by the DNC based on the number of comments he posts, and that is why he hangs out at this site all day instead of doing something constructive with his life.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.6.09 @ 9:56AM

Barack Obama is becoming more like Jimmy Carter every day.

Freeman| 4.6.09 @ 9:56AM

I would suggest Obama to first try his solution at home first.Ennact a law banning all firearms everywhere in the country, disarm all our law-enforcement agencies then our criminels would lose their incentive into arming themselves and become peaceful for ever after.

JamesJ| 4.6.09 @ 10:03AM

Dave Mathews: You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Its delusional and dangerous

Doctor Right| 4.6.09 @ 10:17AM

Obama is not only a complete fool, he's utterly ignorant of history. What the hell was he doing all those years at the Ivy League?? (Oh...I forgot...Snorting blow...)

It is a proven fact that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki SAVED lives, not only American, but Japanese, too. Truman's decision was the right, proper, and HUMANE thing to do.

Extrapolating from the horrible civilian death toll on Okinawa, where thousands of Japanese civilians took their own lives rather than surrender, as well as the cost in American lives to secure Okinawa, American military and civilians leaders were faced with a quandary.

To wit: Nothing short of TOTAL defeat would cause the Japanese to acquiesce to an unconditional surrender. And the cost of TOTAL defeat through an invasion of the Japanese mainland was projected to be severe indeed. Millions of dead Japanese civilians, as well as perhaps 1 million American casualties - the numbers are almost too staggering to comprehend.

So Truman made a decision. It was a tough decision, no doubt, but it was the RIGHT decision. It saved lives. It was humane. It eneded the war.

Now this is, of course, cold comfort to anyone who lost family in the Hiroshima or Nagasaki blasts, or who suffered grievous bodily injury. However, students of WW II history will tell you that, paradoxically, the suffering of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was no worse than that endured by the citizens of Dresden, Kologne, or even Tokyo when those cities were nearly wiped from the map with incendiary explosives.

One need only read an account of the fire-bombing of Tokyo to understand how much worse that was than the atomic bombs dropped on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Tokyo, a city made primarily of wood and paper, was turned into a literal inferno. Babies baked to death on the backs of their fleeing mothers; people who tried to take refuge in municipal swimming pools were crushed to death by the horribly over-crowded conditions that soon developed. Collapsed bridges closed potential escape routes, trapping thousands of citizens, and consigning them to horrible, fiery deaths.

Japan was the enemy in WW II, and they needed to be defeated. And they were. While we take pride as Americans in beating back a Fascist menace, we don't revel in the destruction and death we had to cause to achieve that victory. It simply had to be done.

Thank God we had leaders who understood that war is truly hell, and the best way to stop war is through preparation, and total victory. Peace is guaranteed by strength. And our supply of nuclear weapons is the starkest reminder of how potent that strength is.

Ronald Reagan understood well the power of deterrence, because he also understood that our national security is NOT grounded in the good intentions of others.

Mr. Obama, who would like to be revered like Ronald Reagan, but is more like Little Lord Fauntleroy, would do well to brush-up on his history.

RT| 4.6.09 @ 10:38AM

Weapons in the hands of honorable people save lives and protect liberty. Disarming honorable people is beyond foolishness; it is immoral. When someone proposes disarming honorable people a fitting response is, “Who do you intend to kill?” Disarmament precedes genocide.

This applies on the individual level as well as the international one. It is my belief that in the same way that “The American Spectator” works to protect our freedom of thought, the National Rifle Association works to protect our freedom to exist. May there be blessings (and financial support) upon both their houses.

Kari| 4.6.09 @ 10:39AM

BO has a very definite road map in his pathological narcissitc mind. This nut case truly believes that he is going to rule the entire world by bring the U.S. down. That the world is going to fall at his feet in adoration for bringing the big bad Americans down. He is traveling the world now, seeking his fix of "adoration" as the heat is building here at home. The "Saviour," "John Kennedy like," "greater than Reagan" auras are beginning to vaporize as conditions worsen for everyone but our illustrious Congress people and the BO administration. How much longer can they ride on blaming Bush or blaming Republicans or blaming Christians. Who will be next on the Blame List...Britain, Australia, Israel (a popular one...but already over used,) or some of our other historic allies. Well, the blame is on us for not insisting on educating our people, not insisting that our elected officials represent us, not taking the time to read and keep a watchful eye on our Congress and allowing unrelated pork barrel kick backs and downright theivery items to be added to any bill. We are to blame for allowing our Congress to have given themselves the power to live above the laws and conditions they dictate for us. Will we acknowledge our blame and take action to correct it.... or let this snowball to hell run its course?

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 10:41AM

Hello Y'all,

I can see that Barack Obama has driven the conservatives insane. You people are afflicted by Obama Derangement Syndrome and there is no cure.

The conservatives are attempting, vainly, to morally justify the slaughter of 150,000 Japanese by nuclear annihilation during World War II just as they casually overlook the slaughter of 2,000,000 Vietnamese during the Vietnam War and the slaughter of over 100,000 Iraqis during the Bush War.

Conservatives are also the most recent advocates of nuclear warfare as a number of Republican warmongers wished to drop nuclear bombs on Iran in recent years. Conservatives sure are happy to slaughter civilians when it serves their purposes.

There is no moral justification for nuclear war and therefore no need whatsoever for the world to possess any nuclear weapons.

Now you conservatives should stop clinging to your guns, fundamentalist religions and nuclear weapons. None of these make for an effective security blanket your delusions notwithstanding.

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 10:42AM

Hello Kari,

* "BO has a very definite road map in his pathological narcissitc mind. This nut case truly believes that he is going to rule the entire world by bring the U.S. down. That the world is going to fall at his feet in adoration for bringing the big bad Americans down. "

Barack Obama cannot bring America down. George W. Bush has already destroyed the nation.

Now you conservatives can return to your crying!

CF | 4.6.09 @ 10:49AM

What amazes me is that you guys just continually drink the Kool-Aid on both sides of the proverbial isle. First, Obama increased military and defense spending for the next two budgets. Gates got his 08 budget plus something like 8% increase for 09. Obama promised that throughout the campaign and he made good on that promise. This idea that so many perpetuate that Obama is tearing down our defenses really damages conservative credibility. You don't have to agree with the policies of Obama, but you should stick to the facts. Defense spending is currently up under the Obama Administration. That's a fact.

Second, I have never, ever heard a President tell the world the truth regarding our nuclear capabilities or our future nuclear plans and projects. I don't expect this President to run around telling the world our secrets either. The idea is to put the rhetoric out there that forces rogue nations to reconsider their nuclear ambitions. These countries want to be like the U.S. They want the military might to be recognized as a powerful player on the world stage. People like Kim feel that a nuclear weapon means the rest of us have to pay attention to them.

The author of this article lacks any political intuition, or even any vague perception of reality. This is simply pure extreme right fuel for the fire. So, if you guys want to drink the Kool-Aid and be all up in arms, so be it. But I think you're all over reacting. There are plenty of things you can differ with Obama about. At this point, this country's defense is not one of them.

Kari| 4.6.09 @ 10:55AM

CF... Keeping hoping .... I wish you were right... I'd love to be wrong on where I see this country's future. Obviously you have little or no contact with our military members. They have little faith in this administration and it is down right scary what many are considering their possible future mission.

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 11:03AM

Hello CF,

* "CF... Keeping hoping .... I wish you were right... I'd love to be wrong on where I see this country's future. Obviously you have little or no contact with our military members. They have little faith in this administration and it is down right scary what many are considering their possible future mission. "

If the US Military was willing to sacrifice 4,000 lives for George W. Bush's incompetence and stupidity it really doesn't have any right to complain.

jack| 4.6.09 @ 11:05AM

in the two weeks before we dropped the A bomb we firebombed cities all over Japan. We dropped propane bombs on civilian popolations because thats how you win wars. The death toll from the firebombing campaign was much higher than the death toll from both A bombs. Maybe its propane we should be worried about.
Our president is not a serious man and is a stone cold moron who will cause the next world war.

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 11:06AM

Hello Doctor Right,

* "One need only read an account of the fire-bombing of Tokyo to understand how much worse that was than the atomic bombs dropped on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Tokyo, a city made primarily of wood and paper, was turned into a literal inferno. Babies baked to death on the backs of their fleeing mothers; people who tried to take refuge in municipal swimming pools were crushed to death by the horribly over-crowded conditions that soon developed. Collapsed bridges closed potential escape routes, trapping thousands of citizens, and consigning them to horrible, fiery deaths. "

Yes, indeed, the mass killing of civilians (including women, children and fetuses) was committed numerous times by the United States of America during World War II and all the wars prior and subsequent.

The United States of America has committed genocide and other crimes against humanity on a regular basis. The United States of America has slaughtered millions of civiliasn.

* "Japan was the enemy in WW II, and they needed to be defeated "

Osama Bin Laden type morality and reasoning. Conservatives are terrorists!

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 11:08AM

Hello Jack,

* "in the two weeks before we dropped the A bomb we firebombed cities all over Japan. We dropped propane bombs on civilian popolations because thats how you win wars. The death toll from the firebombing campaign was much higher than the death toll from both A bombs. Maybe its propane we should be worried about. "

So 9/11 was a trivial crime compared to what the United States of America committed on a daily basis during World War II.

Long before the terrorists started killing civilians by the thousands the United States of America slaughtered civilians by the millions.

Needless to say, the United States of America also committed genocide and plenty of other crimes against humanity.

These crimes place Osama Bin Laden's crime in context. Osama killed thousands but America killed millions.

Big J| 4.6.09 @ 11:11AM

Rosencrans: That is a huge insult to Jimmah Cattah, don't you think? You should be ashamed!

:)

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 11:15AM

Hello Big J,

* "Rosencrans: That is a huge insult to Jimmah Cattah, don't you think? You should be ashamed! "

The biggest insult of all would be to compare a president to the idiot George W. Bush.

Ronald Resgan spins in his grave and burns in hell.

Bill Croke| 4.6.09 @ 11:20AM

Jay, Bullseye. Great piece.

Bob Alou | 4.6.09 @ 11:49AM

My response to anyone who suggests that our use of the atomic bomb during WWII was inappropriate is to ask the mothers and fathers of the sons, much less the men who were preparing to invade Japan, what they thought about the decision at the time. As for me, I applaud Harry Truman for his courage. Mathews is a simpleton and a coward.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 12:05PM

The single most humane acts in the terrible massacre that was WW II were the atomic bombings. The number of American casualties it would have taken to invade Japan would have been greater than the rest of WW II altogether. The number of Japanese casualties would have been incalculable.

There were two clear alternatives-- try to shock Japan into surrender or invade an implacable and well-prepared enemy at horrible cost.

I have spoken with several military men who were going to be part of the Japanese invasion, and every one of them credits the dropping of the atom bomb with saving their lives. No rational person has ever suggested a more humane solution to the terrible problem of how to end the war that Japanese aggression had forced on us. No one ever will.

Tim| 4.6.09 @ 12:09PM

I agree with Bob Alou. My father was a 17 year old Marine who graduated from basic in November 1945. If the atomic bombs had not ended the war before then, where do you think a grunt out of boot camp would have been assigned in November 1945? Chances are he would have been killed or wounded in that invasion, so I have a real personal reason (my birth) for being glad that we dropped the bombs.

BTW, DW writes this on his homepage:

May the Day Come When All the People of the World Choose to Live in Peace with God, Nature and Humankind.
Until That day Comes I Choose to Live at Peace with All and Refuse to Hate Anyone.

Now that's rich! Do a little searching on the web and you'll see that Davey is a busy boy at a lot of blogs decrying evil conservatives. That is when he's not out communing with nature and taking pictures of rocks and animals.

Now I think I'll sit back and wait for my "Hello Tim" response.

jayde| 4.6.09 @ 12:13PM

The troll that shall not be named keeps throwing out statistics supposedly proving the evil of America. But he forgets that in 1 war, the Germans killed over 6 million Jews, Gypsies, Christians and other undesirables such as the handicapped. the Japanese enslaved and/or killed unnumbered POWS, Phillipinos, and other islanders on the islands that they conquered. But in the troll's mind, it is the people that the Americans killed in order to end the war that matters. how typical of hate America leftists.

Appleby| 4.6.09 @ 12:24PM

If Harry Truman had not dropped the bombs, more than half our generation (including, one suspects, the parents of "David Matthews") would never have been born, because our fathers would have died in the invasion of the Japanese Mainland. My own beloved Daddy was headed that way after having fought in Europe.

Obama is the antichrist and his mission is to destroy the kingdoms of this world. He is carrying out that mission admirably so far ... and the only good thing one can say is that at last he is putting paid to the puerile mewlings of the 1960s as people who made this stuff up in 1968 are seeing what the world would have been like for them growing up if they had gotten what they wished for. I suggest that anyone who was a liberal in 1968 get out his or her diary and remind yourself that being stupid in your twenties is one thing but you are supposed to grow out of it in time.

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 12:59PM

Hello Bob,

* "My response to anyone who suggests that our use of the atomic bomb during WWII was inappropriate is to ask the mothers and fathers of the sons, much less the men who were preparing to invade Japan, what they thought about the decision at the time. As for me, I applaud Harry Truman for his courage. Mathews is a simpleton and a coward. "

It is so easy to justify the mass slaughter of a 150,000 civilians. Undoubtedly Osama Bin Laden used a similar argument to justify the attack on New York City.

Certainly if the nuclear annihilation of two cities is a morally justifiable act then flying planes into buildings is also morally justifiable.

Conservatives don't mind mass murder and genocide so long as they are committing the acts. Hence the many crimes against humanity committed by the United States of America throughout its history.

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 1:03PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "The single most humane acts in the terrible massacre that was WW II were the atomic bombings."

9/11 was a trivial act, wasn't it? Conservatives have an abhorrently perverse morality when it comes to the mass murder of civilians.

* "The number of American casualties it would have taken to invade Japan would have been greater than the rest of WW II altogether. The number of Japanese casualties would have been incalculable. "

There were other options. The nuclear bombs weren't necessary.

* "There were two clear alternatives-- try to shock Japan into surrender or invade an implacable and well-prepared enemy at horrible cost. "

Dropping a nuclear bomb on a church and exterminating Japan's only native Christian community was an honorable act, then?

Conservatives are so eager to whitewash America's genocidal acts but they should be careful lest they justify all terrorist acts.

* "I have spoken with several military men who were going to be part of the Japanese invasion, and every one of them credits the dropping of the atom bomb with saving their lives. No rational person has ever suggested a more humane solution to the terrible problem of how to end the war that Japanese aggression had forced on us. No one ever will. "

Undoubtedly flying planes into buildings was also a rational, morally justifiable act. Conservatives complain so much about the killing of fetuses but they are fully committed to the mass killing of the born.

Son Of Sam| 4.6.09 @ 1:04PM

I cannot imagine why anyone should be surprised by any of the idiotic and immoral utterances of the TelePrompter in Chief. This grinning fool believes that children who survive an abortion should be left to die, while terrorists who have murdered thousands of Americans should be allowed to live. He also believes that a tax cheat should run our treasury, and that America should apologize to the continent that gave us Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

There is an awakening going on, my friends, and I've seen it among friends of mine who voted for this jabbering puppet: there is some SERIOUS buyers remorse going on right now. Being a gentleman, I am refraining from telling them "I told you so"; instead, I am encouraging them to DIS-AFFILIATE from the Democrats, and stop supporting this party of mass insanity.

stay strong until freedom dawns,
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos

David Mathews| 4.6.09 @ 1:07PM

Hello Tim,

* "I agree with Bob Alou. My father was a 17 year old Marine who graduated from basic in November 1945. If the atomic bombs had not ended the war before then, where do you think a grunt out of boot camp would have been assigned in November 1945? Chances are he would have been killed or wounded in that invasion, so I have a real personal reason (my birth) for being glad that we dropped the bombs. "

Nuclear bombs killed plenty of children and fetuses, too. Undoubtedly the conservatives who condemn America for abortion cannot condone the mass murder of thousands of Japanese fetuses by nuclear annihilation.

Yet they do ... Christianity is blasphemed by the Christians.

* "Now that's rich! Do a little searching on the web and you'll see that Davey is a busy boy at a lot of blogs decrying evil conservatives. That is when he's not out communing with nature and taking pictures of rocks and animals. "

I've spent a long time fighting against racism, bigotry, xenophobia, warmongering and the genocial tendencies of conservatives. These efforts are necessary to the cause of peace.

Conservatives love warfare and hate peace. Such people cannot abide peace and that is why they cling desperate to their hatred, their fear, the fundamentalist religions, their guns, their military and their nuclear weapons.

Needless to say, there is no peace on the Earth. Humans have thoroughly trashed this planet and it is extremely unlikely that humankind will survive. Once humans are extinct the Earth will be peaceful again.

But there really is a better way for humans to live ....

Bob Alou| 4.6.09 @ 1:13PM

Dave, I'm glad to see you haven't gone away. We didn't attack Japan and suggesting that Osama Bin Laden enjoyed the same moral justification as the U.S. in WWII is nonsense. What I would tell you, since it is obvious that you have no loved ones worth fighting for, yes I would drop a hundred nuclear bombs to save my son from a needless death at the hands of an aggressor, any aggressor if that is what it took to protect him. If that validates your sense of moral superiority then have yourself a picnic. My bottom line is that I am a father, and an American. Leave my kids and country alone or reap the whirlwind. And by the way, your photography is pretty bad. Regards.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 1:20PM

Sure, Europe gave us Beethoven, Rembrandt, Goethe, Chopin, and Pasteur, but what have they done for us lately?

The same Europe that lectures us on morality and politics has in the last century given us Marxism, Socialism, Existentialism, Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Deconstructionism, music that offends the ears and pictures that hurt the eyes.

We have given them the restoration of independence and democracy, the Marshall Plan, defense against the USSR, foreign aid, rock n roll, and blue jeans. I think we're ahead, even counting MacDonalds in the negative column.

Anyone want to defend European 'culture'? By this, I mean anyone sane?

Everly Waverly| 4.6.09 @ 1:22PM

Barack Obama is an anomaly and it allowed him to be elected President, he's not a typical black man, he speaks with a misdirecting and disarming authority. If his rhetoric matched his inner jive he would have not gotten out of the primaries, a lot like Al Sharpton. Obama was raised a leftist and to a fault. His instructors from an early age steeped him in Marxist ideology and that America's to blame for all humanities ills. Potential use or non-use of atomic weapons was his masters thesis, disarmament being his argument and desire. We're 90 days into this mess and Obama has probably caused a lot of regret with his early supporters, they're wondering, what have I done? No one would wish for the use of atomic weapons, but to unilaterally, arbitrarily discount their deterrent value is Marxist Jive.....

fundamentalist| 4.6.09 @ 1:23PM

The desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons is nothing but gun control writ large.

BTW, my city just hosted a major gun show and the size of the crowd was amazing. Hundreds of thousands of people bought all the guns and ammo they could carry in the pickups and Hummers! BO has been great for the gun business. Thanks Mr. President!

BIg Leo| 4.6.09 @ 1:26PM

According to the loony left, Iraq is just an excuse for bloodthirsty Americans to kill foreigners. Afghanistan is presumably the same. And Guantanamo is rife with torture and oppression of innocent little Islamic hobbits.

If this is true, why does the Great Wizard Obama permit these atrocities to continue even one day? He's reinforcing Afghanistan, allowing the so-called genocidal war in Iraq to continue in its current form, and hasn't made any real arrangements to actually close Guantanamo.

Could political and historical reality actually had some effect on his decisions?

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 1:36PM

Just one little historical note. It was liberal Democrats under FDR that developed the bomb and a liberal Democrat, Harry Truman, who decided to drop it. It's been a long time, but remember that at one time liberal Democrats were also patriots and realists.

Everly Waverly| 4.6.09 @ 1:38PM

It seems there is more than one Mathews, can't someone put a stop to these guys????

Jesus is coming to saveyou| 4.6.09 @ 1:40PM

There was a Terrorist Attack in Italy today called an Earth Quake. Floodings 2 weeks ago in America. The other Terrorist attack came last year, compliments of Rich Bankers, and control freeks, as a result you have millions homeless, jobless, and Business closures.

And a President here making a fuss about a rocket, in North Korea, that injured no one.

Sunday, the 5th April a man killed his 5 Children in America, last week a man killed 14 people and the week befor that 8 people was shot to death. How many was killed by North Korea's rocket?.

Over 6'000 people lost their Jobs last March 09. What did Obama say about the Depression, nothing, what did he say about people losing their homes and their business.

Fread the real News, and Join the real world.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 1:41PM

"It seems there is more than one Mathews, can't someone put a stop to these guys???? " OF course there is, which is another reason we should keep the atomic bomb. And Guantanamo.

Bob Alou| 4.6.09 @ 1:51PM

Dave says
"I've spent a long time fighting against racism, bigotry, xenophobia, warmongering and the genocial tendencies of conservatives. These efforts are necessary to the cause of peace."

Exactly how have you done this? It seems you spend most of your time trying to insult or rile up people who disagree with your self-serving moralism. How have you advanced the cause of social justice, ended racism, halted xenophobia, braced the s0-called war-mongers. That's an awful lot to hang on a vote for Obama. You're a blowhard who doesn't make arguments but merely express outrage against those who do not agree with you. I'll bet you have ten bumper stickers on your car expressing your outrage at all of your perceived injustices that need rectifying. Why don't you post a picture of it on your website it will save us all a lot of time.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 1:57PM

Another interesting historical note is that it was a liberal Democrat, Harry Truman, who committed troops to the Korean war, when we weren't even attacked. It was a Republican, Eisenhower, who ended it. And it was liberal Democrats under Johnson who committed troops to Viet Nam, and Republican Richard Nixon who ended it. It was liberal Wilson who started WW I when we weren't attacked. At least he also ended it. For better or worse, you can't blame Republicans for starting most of the wars in the twentieth century-- unless of course you are severely reality challenged.

Hank Rearden| 4.6.09 @ 1:59PM

What a childish worldview!?!?!

Doctor Right| 4.6.09 @ 2:00PM

Dear Comrade david matthews:

Good to see that you received and are regurgitating the talking points!

Also good to see that you have settled into your government job! We wanted to make sure that you have AMPLE time to spit-out the propaganda and vitriol we prvide for you, so a GS-4 job as a "sanitation analyst" was, in retrospect, a perfect choice.

Now, a word of caution:
Be careful NOT to argue with the Conservatives! Statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they generally have achieved:

a) Higher levels of education
b) Higher-paying, real private-sector jobs with actual responsibility (as opposed to the ones we give to drones...errrr...I meant "Comrades" like yourself)

So arguing and debating with them is not a good idea, since inevitably, your lack of real knowledge on any subject will ultimately surface.

Also...Please be advised: HQ needs us to move FAST! America is catching on to our plans, despite our "grande' masquerova", so we must all double our efforts to convince as many people as possible that Dear Leader Obambi and his gracious and fetching wife are actually intelligent, thoughtful, and smart, as opposed to...Well...You know.

Additionally, our Intelligence Services are deeply concerned about the 2010 elections. We fear a Conservative backlash, so DON'T make them too angry, because they may yet win, and figure out where you live, too.

But soldier on, Agent Davey! Keep repeating the weekly talking points, and remember, if all else fails, just remember to say (loudly and as often as possible):

1. America sucks!
2. It's all Bush's fault!
3. Obama IS the savior!

Many Thanks,

Commisar Emmanuel

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 2:12PM

Obama's Apology Tour continues in its obsequious, fawning pathway. Today, he apologized to the Japanese Emperor because the exploding warships on Battleship Row permanently damaged the hearing of innocent Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor.

Bram| 4.6.09 @ 2:38PM

Appleby - Right-on. My Father-in-law went through Paris Island in the spring of 1945. He, and many hundreds of thousands like him, was going to be cannon-fodder in the invasion of mainland Japan.

If Truman had elected to invade instead of using the bombs he would have been impeached by Congress and probably lynched by the hundred thousand grieving families.

Bram| 4.6.09 @ 2:40PM

Dave - Here's an easy way to tell we aren't terrorists - you are still breathing.

proreason| 4.6.09 @ 2:47PM

"The world Barack Obama describes is very close to being the exact opposite of reality."

Strike the words "very close to being" and you are at the truth.

In his world, everything this country has ever done is wrong and must be reversed.

Is there a single policy not changed, and most in 180 degree reversals?

Dangerous times indeed.

1Freeman| 4.6.09 @ 2:48PM

If you do the math you will find that Mathews has written about 6,000 words of hate and abuse just in the last day on this one story alone. Pay this troll no mind yall. He is paid to be here attacking and inciting. Hopefully the moderator will track and block his IP address... his handlers will get him a new one soon after that but we can still call a pig a pig.

Bob Alou| 4.6.09 @ 2:53PM

show us the car dave

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 2:54PM

Bram,
My uncles and father were also in the battle groups to be used in the planned invasion of Japan. When our military intelligence officers examined the prepared defenses in the areas we were actually going to hit in Operation Olympia, they were aghast at the level of force that we would have faced. There were enormous quantity of planes stockpiled for kamikaze attacks, including human guided cruise missiles. It is likely we would have failed in our initial attempt to establish a viable beachhead in Japan. Civilians were being drilled to attack us en masse with spears where no guns were available. All competent military historians I am familiar with state that the nuclear option prevented millions of deaths, both Japanese and American. If anyone is aware of any military historian who says otherwise, I would welcome the information, as I have never read a cogent argument against the use of the atom bomb in the Japanese war.

proreason| 4.6.09 @ 3:29PM

Dave, gotcha.

We should have gone with the estimate of 1 million U.S. caualties to invade Japan. Hey, maybe it would only have been 900,00.

I see where you're comin from.

Smart power. Very smart.

Of course, now we have The Moron to chat-up the bad guys. Oh, oops, there really aren't any bad guys, are there.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 4:42PM

-->“world of falsehood” [Homnick]

This is true of Obama’s speech in Prague, but not even close to the reasons cited by Homnick.

This essay is absurd, and pure misdirection.

The more apt description of Obama, demonstrated by this speech, is Perfidy.

-->“Before a teeming throng of Czechs, he declared that nuclear weapons must be eliminated from the world. This may take a long time, he averred, beyond even his own lifetime.” [Homnick]

Yep. Big deal.

Obama is 47 years old. Given even average life expectancy, then, if he should live to die a natural death, and meet it, that would mean that Obama doesn’t expect this elimination of nuclear weapons to occur before 26 years from now.

Not exactly “imminent”

(In reality, Obama probably knows perfectly well that it won’t happen at all).

MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Obama made these statements while praising the Czech Republic and Poland as "courageous" due to these two countries "agreeing to host a defense against these missiles" (an ‘agreement’ not shared, wisely, by over 2/3 of the population of the Czech
Republic).

Construction of the new American global missile battery continues, and erection of the fire control radars in the Czech Republic will continue to completion, despite the opposition of though 2/3 of the Czech population to the siting of this portion of the global missile battery in the Czech Republic.

-->“Even a working missile defense can never be a foolproof solution. Any realistic plan requires a trustworthy monitor with its own nuclear weaponry, who can threaten to shoot first and guarantee to shoot second.” [Homnick]

So, It’s Ronald Reagan, not Barack Obama, that Homnick has the most trouble with.

Development of the American global missile battery began with Ronald Reagan in 1983, when he initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), for the purpose of making "nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete" (Reagan didn’t expect to see it in his lifetime either, so at least he probabaly didn’t die disappointed).

Does Homnick stand with those who deride, and ridicule, Reagan’s SDI as “Star Wars?”

The goals, and names of the program have changed since, first during the G.H.W. Bush administration, then during the Clinton administration, and then during the G.W. Bush administration [The Missile Defense Agency (MDA)].

Obama hasn’t renamed the program yet (he’s only been in office a bit over 70 days), so is continuing under the MDA name and goals established by Department of Defense (DoD) during the G.W. Bush administration:

"to develop and field an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense [BMD] system to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.”

Quite different from Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), for the purpose of making "nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

The MDA is obviously a missile battery that can employ defensive capabilities for offensive purposes.

To aid the goal of a “guarantee to shoot second” for us, and to deny it to our enemies.

So Obama’s speech in Prague, does nothing to eliminate, or even facilitate elimination of American, French and British [including those of the Commonwealth countries, India and Pakistan] nuclear weapons, but advances the MDA.

-->“It [The U.S.A.] has a moral obligation to do this because it is the only steadfast polity that employs its military and financial might strictly for the purposes of mankind.”

Rubbish.

The U.S.A. has been on a rampage, since at least 1991, the two Bush, Clinton, and now Obama administrations: Attacking, through punative expeditions, aerial and missile bombardements, and full-scale military offensives, and occupations, countries that have not attacked it, and taken part in no parts attacks against it.

By pre-reformed American, and pre-reformed religions standards, the U.S.A. has become a raw, naked, aggressor. The policy of “pre-emptive warfare” may be being downplayed by the Obama administration, but has not been repudiated, and the precedent has been set.

Arguments employing anything prior to 1991 are irrelevant. This is a different country.

Louis Jenkins| 4.6.09 @ 4:49PM

The 7th fleet was quietly at anchor on Dec. 7th in Pearl Harbor, within a US territory. They were not on a raid, not shelling a foreign country, nor on a training mission. Twelve hundred men are now entombed in the hull of the USS Arizona at the bottom of Pearl. Some sources indicate that FDR and Churchill knew the Japanese attack was coming from broken code Japanese radio communications. And so began a war unlike no other. The Japanese did not believe in surrender, nor compromise. Only their utter defeat, complete, without compromise, would end the war. Let's not kid ourselves. Truman did what he had to do. Obama will quibble, waffle, and defer if ever in the same situation.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 4:57PM

-->“Hello Idiot & Lunatic Conservatives,” [David Mathews| 4.6.09]

As I’ve noted elsewhere:

The crudeness, vulgarity, ignorance and arrogance of much of so much of the re-formed population of this country is “bi-partisan” (actually, Multi-partisan).

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 5:07PM

Paul,
As much as I am able to follow your argument, you seem to be an isolationist of some variety. Correct me if I'm wrong. I understand the appeal of isolationism, but would be more sanguine about its possibilities if I thought it would work n today's world. It certainly hasn't worked in the twentieth century, and isn't likely to work in the twenty-first.

Because of our dependence on international trade, especially the trade in oil, any enemy which cuts off our supply of oil or totally dominates the main sources of our supply of oil must be defeated. Iraq's former government had the desire and the ability to dominate its neighbors and had actually attacked two of them, conquering one. It financed terrorism in the Middle East. It also broke every clause in the armistice it signed after the first Gulf War, which itself constituted several declarations of war on us.

Afghanistan harbored the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. If that government had not been destroyed, not only would Al Quaeda had a safe haven in one country, but others would be encouraged to extend them the same refuge in the sure knowledge that we would do nothing about it.

We had a choice to engage in both of these wars, but to do so would have encouraged the expansion of Iraq to dominate the entire area and guaranteed safety for the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and many hundreds more before and since. I don't see the alternative potential outcomes as viable for us in the long run, or even in the short run unless we were willing to accede to terrorist and economic blackmail.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 5:09PM

-->“The 7th fleet was quietly at anchor on Dec. 7th in Pearl Harbor,. . .” [Louis Jenkins| ]

The U.S. 7th Fleet did not exist on 7 December 1941.

-->"The Japanese did not believe in surrender, nor compromise." [Louis Jenkins| ]

Japan did not initiate war against America with the war goal of “unconditional surrender” for the U.S.A. for the purpose of conquering and occupying the U.S.A.

Japan completely lacked the means (resources, manpower, war maching, . . .) to do so.

Japan initiated war with the war goal of forcing a negotiated settlement that would be beneficial to itself.

"Unconditional surrender" as a war goal was the American-Anglo-Chinese position, 1943
onward (American-Anglo-Chinese-Russian, 6-14 August 1945).

pete the mediocre| 4.6.09 @ 5:13PM

Dropping "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost had an invasion been necessary. One only has to look at the fanaticism of the Japanese leadership that led to the annihilation of the Japanese troops on Iwo Jima to realize what an invasion of the mainland would have looked like.

Those who have mentioned the firebombing of Tokyo and other major cities are absolutely correct in stating that this was more devastating than the atomic bombs. It was only because of the scope of the destruction of a single plane and bomb that caused Japan's military to call it quits.

db| 4.6.09 @ 5:37PM

Man, oh man, you are a pistol, Mr. Mathews!

You come across as very self-serving, and frankly, hateful, when you claim to want to live in peace with those who do not hate, but then judge those that disagree with you as haters. If you took the time to set aside your prejudices and actually talk to a real cross-section of conservatives, you would find that we are all concerned about the same issues. Nobody wants war. Nobody wants hunger, poverty, famine. Everybody wants to ensure that the earth is clean and available to our children’s children’s children.

Modern American conservatism was founded on the Judeo-Christian teachings that have informed Western Civilization. We believe that there is a moral law that provides the foundation for our beliefs. It is not a complex structure, though its implications can make for a lot of regulation and rules that help those who have not had the opportunity to learn the underlying principles. We also believe that man is not perfect; all will make mistakes, sometimes committing egregious evil. But one always has the opportunity, daily, to renew one’s self, make amends, and move forward.

Certainly, there are hypocrites and opportunists in the ranks of conservatives. Just as with your side, we have those who pretend to embrace our ideals only to obtain and secure for themselves power, riches, and fame. And just like with your side, we often can’t see our own opportunists because we want to give them the benefit of the doubt, often until it is too late. Had your side not been so intent on preserving President Clinton, who perjured himself in a court of law (it really wasn’t about sex to conservatives), then a President Gore would have easily won the election in 2000 and perhaps had been re-elected in the post-9/11 patriotic aura that helped secure President Bush a second term.

You have every right to challenge what is said by columnists here. We believe in spirited debate and free speech. And, yes, your guy won. I believe he is sincere in his hopes and plans. They happen to run counter to what we believe is best for the country. Just as you would not accept “We won, so shut up!” under a Republican administration, you have no right to use that argument now… not if you really care about your country.

We might come from different points of view, but if you really want to live at peace with all who refuse to hate anyone, maybe you should try not hating and disrespecting out of hand those who disagree with you.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 5:59PM

-->“Correct me if I'm wrong” Big Leo| 4.6.09

Hi Leo:

No. I’m not what could be called an isolationist.

Personally, I believe that the “isolationist” business is way overblown and a better term would be “neo-isolationist,” since no real isolationist movements have much existed in this country since 1941.

My primary arguments were that

“This essay [Homnick’s] is absurd, and pure misdirection.”

That Obama’s speech in Prague, was the same: An example of perfidy (“betrayal by faith,” or ‘trust’) via dissembling (misdirection).

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 6:08PM

->[Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:
As to the rest of your statements, there’s much I disagree with.

First, however, so we’re clear regarding my personal position:

I supported the invasion of Iraq, April-December 2003, while still under the impression that Iraq had been part of the attacks against us on 11 September 2001 [via the members of the G.W. Bush administration’s statements, principally Colin Powell’s, about meetings in Prague, with hijackers, mention of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and so forth. . .].

I turned firmly against the occupation of Iraq, and the war earlier that year, in December 2003, when President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Rice and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld all went on public television, on the Sunday-morning interview programs, and stated plainly that they had never said that Iraq was tied to al-Qaida or took part in the attacks against us on 11 September 2001.

If Iraq had not been part of the attacks against us, then there was no reason just reason to invade in the first place. Even so-called weapons of mass destruction argument is undermined, even had they actually existed, was rendered meaningless by this.

So I was quite alone in a tiny minority in 2004 (and probably still am).

In truth, I was already disgusted at the conduct of the occupation, and Rumsfeld’s disgraceful ‘stand-up-comedian like interviews. The purpose of occupying forces is to maintain order (PREVENT murder, looting, rioting, or general chaos, due to the civil
government no longer being capable of doing so: in short, to protect the population of the occupied country by maintaining law and order).

As to Iraq, Somalia, the Balkan peninsula, Sudan and Afghanistan, during the Clinton administration:

Clinton’s praise of President G.H.W. Bush in a debate in 1992, for post-Cold War use of American military, I found disturbing, and counted as a reason not to vote for Clinton (one more among many). I had no desire, whatsoever, to see Americans used as global
policemen. The Clinton administration only confirmed my discomfiture at his remarks.

Of them all, the assaults in the Balkan peninsula, 1995 & 1999, and the occupation, elimination, and partition of Yugoslavia (to use descriptive terminology), under
“humanitarian” pretenses, I never supported, and continue to find disgraceful.

The aerial bombardment of Iraq, 1991-2003, during the G.H.W. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations, I wasn’t fully aware of (certainly not the extent of the naval air assaults: The number of them and the bomb tonnages) until working through articles at the Naval Historical Center’s website, about 2004-05.

pete the mediocre| 4.6.09 @ 6:14PM

Paul Crowley,
Your statement that the &th; fleet did not exist on Dec. 7th, 1941 splits hairs and is in fact not correct. The fleet that would be renamed the "7th" in 1943 did in fact exist as the "Southwest Pacific Force."

Changing the name does not negate the fact that the fleet existed.

P. Aaron| 4.6.09 @ 6:27PM

It appears that D. Mathews just loves that big government shaft up the chute.

He ignores all the warnings of what can happen when one does such unprotected acts with government strangers.

I am sure that your party also told you that they would still respect you in the morning!

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 6:45PM

->[Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:
Now to address my disagreements with your statements.

First, I’ll need clarification from you.

-->“Because of our dependence on international trade, especially the trade in oil, any enemy which cuts off our supply of oil or totally dominates the main sources of our supply of oil must be defeated.” [Big Leo|]

Are you saying that it is our (Americans, or the American-Anglo-French bloc) obligation to dominate world petroleum trade, and that anyone who attempts to prevent our doing so is automatically an “enemy?”
Correct me If I’m wrong.

Further, America runs trade imbalances, world-wide, especially in manufactured and processed goods. What is in our national interest to in this situation?

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 6:54PM

Paul,
America's dependence on foreign oil is at this point nearly absolute. We cannot run our economy without it. So any power which threatens to monopolize the oil trade is threatening our national well being just as if they declared war on us. We don't have to dominate oil production, as if we could given the variety of suppliers, but we need to guarantee a free and orderly market in oil. Iraq was in the position to to disrupt this. Also, by 2003 they had effectively declared war on us by breaking every major provision of the armistice they signed following the first Gulf War.

I agree with you about the intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. We put ourselves in the untenable situation of warring on a democracy on behalf of a secessionist movement. Thank God the British and French did not do the same during our own civil war. I also agree with you about our intervention in Somalia, which was ill considered and counterproductive even to the humanitarian concerns that we named as the reasons for that intervention.

However, the world is a better place with a democracy in Iraq, even though it is still shaky, and a much better place without Hussein and his family in power.

Louis Jenkins| 4.6.09 @ 7:04PM

The Japanese were peaceful rice farmers who worked their paddies from sun up til night. Bushito means tree farmer in Japanese, right?Please follow the next two links to discover how peaceful they were. Gittmo would be heaven compared to what those buggers did to anyone with white skin.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/

the Japanese lacked the means to create a war machine. But they kicked the snot out of the Russian Navy in the early 20th century. Yeah, ya got me on the 7th fleet statement. Should have been the pacific fleet. None-the-less, follow the link below to see how the poorly equipped the Japanese row boat squadron intended to take on the US, nay, the world.

http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~y.hirama/JNpreparation.pdf

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 7:23PM

-->“Paul Crowley, Your statement that the &th; fleet did not exist on Dec. 7th, 1941 splits hairs and is in fact not correct. The fleet that would be renamed the ‘7th’ in 1943 did in fact exist as the ‘Southwest Pacific Force.] " [pete the mediocre|]

I agree that it is a small point relative to the nonsense that "The Japanese did not believe in surrender, nor compromise." It was the American-Anglo-Chinese alliance that did not believe in negotiation (i.e. “compromise”), not the Japanese government.

However, since Louis Jenkins saw fit to include “The U.S. 7th Fleet,” then I saw fit to correct his error.

You’re also wrong.

The American naval fleets in existence on 7 December 1941 were the U.S. Pacific Fleet (elements of which were at Pearl Harbor on 7 December) and the U.S. Asiatic Fleet in the western Pacific.

-->“Changing the name does not negate the fact that the fleet existed.” [pete the mediocre|]

The U.S. 7th Fleet did not exist in 1941.

The names, and nature, of military commands are absolutely critical.

American naval fleets are formed, and given names or numerical designations, for the purpose of command and control, via the Fleet Commander-in-Chief (during WWII, now Fleet Commander) and his staff, of the respective fleet (Vice Admiral rank).

American naval fleets are usually formed to cover geographic areas.

Individual ships, task groups (now renamed “battle groups”), task forces (now renamed “battle forces”),
entering and leaving those geographic areas, leave or enter the command region of the respective Fleet Commanders (i.e. cease to be, or become part of, a particlular fleet).

The U.S. 7th Fleet did not exist in 1941.

If you don’t like my corrections, then just blame them on your lack of familiarity with the subject, my familiarity with it, and on my being an ex U.S.S. Okahoma City, CG-5 (“Press On Regardless”), sailor at the time that she was flagship, U.S. 7th Fleet (“Ready Power For Peace”).

You may think me a "pedant,” if you like, but I would disagree when response like yours are made, because such details do matter.

Seeing the sergeants being instructed to tell the young jarheads and squids at Fallujah in 2004 the pap that they were "doing the same thing as the marines at Iwo Jima and Hui City" (a bizarre pairing to begin with), was disturbing enough to compel me to address this kind of nonsense.

As I said elsewhere, this is a different country.. .

Dano| 4.6.09 @ 7:32PM

I can't believe any of you are responding to or mentioning this troll.

GAZE...

Louis Jenkins| 4.6.09 @ 7:37PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_of_World_War_II

Not bad for a nation without industrial means nor warlike ambition.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 7:49PM

-->“the Japanese lacked the means to create a war machine.” [Louis Jenkins| ]

Hi Louis:
Thanks for not quibbling on my mis-spelling of machine” (I typed “maching”).

I believe that you misunderstood what I typed.

I didn’t say that Japan “lacked the means to create a war machine.”

Japan not only had the means to create a war machine, but it in fact possessed a quite substantial war machine, elements of which were spread throughout the Empire of Japan at the time: naval fleets, complete with naval and air bases, and naval infantry (marines), positioned throughout the empire and the mandates. It also had numerous armies, also
spread throughout the empire (such as in Korea), an army in the puppet-state of Manchuko, an expeditionary army in China, and troops in French Indochina (the latter of which, led to American-Japanese confrontation).

My statement was that Japan did not possess a sufficient war machine, or the means to create one, for the purpose of “unconditional surrender” as a war goal (which it never was), at the time that Japan started the war against the U.S.A.:

What I wrote:

“Japan did not initiate war against America with the war goal of ‘unconditional surrender’ for the U.S.A. for the purpose of conquering and occupying the U.S.A.

Japan completely lacked the means (resources, manpower, war maching, . . .) to do so.

Japan initiated war with the war goal of forcing a negotiated settlement that would be
beneficial to itself.

‘Unconditional surrender’ as a war goal was the American-Anglo-Chinese position, 1943
onward (American-Anglo-Chinese-Russian, 6-14 August 1945).”

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 7:58PM

->"Not bad for a nation without industrial means nor warlike ambition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_of_World_War_II" [Louis Jenkins]

Hi Louis:
You're arguing with yourself now Louis.

Also, Wikipedia is a lousy source of information (too untrustworthy due to lack of sound editing and no accountability).

DaveS| 4.6.09 @ 8:12PM

Wikipedia is fine - if you limit yourself to gathering information on important subjects such as bedwetting and baseball.

However, this same guy wants you (as taxpayers) to invest in companies that lose $1000 per vehicle sold - as opposed to forgoing such an 'investment.' Sounds like sustainability to me, so just shut up!

bernardo| 4.6.09 @ 8:26PM

We can only hope that our maximum leader just got carried away. If he means it, even a little, it is a very, very bad thing. Someone has to be the leading nuclear power, and it had better be the US. If fools such as Matthews above cannot see that, I would invite a suggestion from them as to which nation they would prefer fill that role. As to dropping the bombs on Japan, I believe Truman was right. I have a special interest. My father was scheduled to participate in the early stages of the invasion. In all liklihood, I and millions like me are here because Truman ended the war with the bomb. Matthews may even be here bacause of that, but we should not hold that against Truman.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 8:31PM

->[Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:
Sorry, I got off on the other tack.

My disagreements with your statements.

To begin:

-->“Iraq's former government had the desire and the ability to dominate its neighbors and had actually attacked two of them, conquering one. [Big Leo|]

The Hussein government may have had the “desire” to dominate the region, but it did not have the ability to do so, definitely not, 1989 onward.

The American Persian Gulf expedition, air and naval forces, was launched 30 years ago, to provide naval and military protection to the region. The British had the task prior to their withdrawal in 1971.

American Advanced Bases, air and naval, already existed in the Indian Ocean, and were developed steadily in the Persian Gulf region (especially air bases in Saudi Arabia, and logistical bases in other states, such as Bahrain), from that time onward.
The American military was dramatically reformed (modernized), 1986-88, giving us air and naval superiority abilities that we completely lacked even in 1985 (elements of which were battle tested and demonstrated in the raid on Libya in 1986 and the naval battles with the Iranians in 1989).

Iraq’s easy defeat in Kuwait in 1991, demonstrated the lack of an Iraqi ability to dominate the Persian Gulf region. American Advanced Bases in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf region, and southwest Asia and northeast Africa, along with Advanced Bases across Europe and the western Pacific, and the advanced (as in forward) industrial production of Europe, Asia, and the Persian Gulf region that supports our military, assured that Iraqi domination of the Persian Gulf was completely unrealistic.

-->“It [Hussein government] financed terrorism in the Middle East.” [Big Leo|]

The Hussein government provided no finances to any groups or movements that attacked Americans or the U.S.A.

The financing by Iraq was to movements that opposed Zionism and were directed against Israelis. Israel is beyond capable of defending itself and American invasion of Iraq was not needed for the Israelis to deal with this, nor justified by it.

Understand, I've never been a "blind cheerleader" for Israel.

-->“It [Hussein government] also broke every clause in the armistice it signed after the first Gulf War, which itself constituted several declarations of war on us.” [Big Leo|]

One can argue that something constitutes declarations of war on us,” all he likes, but it is a claim never made by the American government, and no formal declaration of war, or attacks, upon the U.S.A. was ever made by Iraq. And not all agreements were violated by Iraq, or even alleged to be, the so-called
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs were all dismantled.

From 1991 to 2003, the steady American naval and air strikes against Iraq (with minor assistance by “allies”) were made on the basis of alleged violations by Iraq of the United Nations organization’s (UN) so-called no-fly zones, in southern and northern Iraq. The American military was used on behalf of the UN Security Council, and used each time a claim was made that Iraq violated the post-war agreements.
The UN Security Council did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but explicitly refused to give support.

Hence the American-Anglo-led “Coalition of the Willing.”

Iraq’s air forces, anti-air, and command and control capabilities were decimated during the 12-year period of air strikes and missile bombardment on behalf of the UN: Hence, not only American air and naval superiority, but dominance, during the Iraq war,
March-April 2003, and since.

cont'd. . .

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 8:42PM

Paul, I'll give a short answer to a very long post.
Some of the offenses of Iraq included shooting at allied airplanes in a zone they were allowed by the treaty to fly in and attempting to assassinate an ex-President. Both are acts of war. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and earlier of Iran demonstrate their willingness to go to war in order to dominate the area. Their capacity to win a conventional war against the United States is of course nonexistent, but their ability to disrupt the entire area by financing terrrorism is without doubt.

agni| 4.6.09 @ 9:03PM

Article VI of the US Constitution says
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Article VI of the NPT (Ratification advised by U.S. Senate March 13, 1969) says
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

So.. the law of the United States promises complete disarmament. Obama is merely upholding the law.

Or does the United States not honor treaties it signs?

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 9:13PM

->“The Hussein government may have had the “desire” to dominate the region, but it did not have the ability to do so, definitely not, 1989 onward.”

Since Command and Control came up in the chat about naval fleets, then an important addition, for military capability by 1989:

Command and Control was firmly in place via U.S. Central Command.

The first advanced-positioned carrier task group, for Indian Ocean patrol, the Midway, was in place, in Japan, by 1971-72.

The American Persian Gulf expedition was established, publicly, during the Carter Administration, "Kermit" & "Gonzo" stations in the Arabian Sea, in early 1979.

The command of the expedition forces, principally , air and naval forces, was under U.S. Pacific Command at that time.

The Rapid Deployment Force was established during the Carter Administration in 1980.

U.S. Central Command was established during the Reagan Administration.

Central Command comprised southwest Asia, south-central Asia, and a portion of northwest Africa.

The U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Central Command are Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) unified commands.

JCS unified commands place all military forces, air, naval, and ground, under the command of a single commanding officer (regardless of which branch of the armed forces he is a member of), who serves directly under the JCS, rather than his respective
service Chief.

Two new JCS unified commands were established during the G.W. Bush administration:

U.S. North America Command and U.S. Africa Command.

U.S. Africa Command covers most of the entire continent, except Egypt: areas previously under U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Europe Command.

U.S. Africa Command has a new twist, its staff is composed of half military (Department of Defense) and half civilian (Department of State).

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 9:28PM

agni,
One problem with the treaty you mention is that one of the parties, the USSR, no longer exists. Another problem is that the other nations that would have to disarm for there to be real nuclear disarmament haven't signed the treaty. Or do you propose that we should disarm unilaterally and leave much of the rest of the world armed with nuclear weapons? Why do I think that will end in tears?

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 9:28PM

Prior to 1988-89, American aircraft carriers did not operate in the Persian Gulf, but remained on station in the North Arabian Sea. Their protection could not have been assured. American guided missile cruisers & destroyers, with Naval Tactical Data System
(NTDS) capabilitiy were used as picket ships in the gulf, while destroyers and frigates patroled the Strait of Hormuz.

NTDS was the analog-digital electronics hyprid satellite communications predessor of the IT21 now used.

Due to the modernization of American naval, air and ground forces, especially 1986-88, that changed, giving American military forces overwhelming air and naval superiority that led to the dominance that was rapidly achieved in the 1991 war.

Hence the ground forces being effectively used as little more than a huge blocking force, on the Saudi-Kuwait and Saudi-Iraq borders for all but 100 hours of the breif war with the Iraqi military, and the latters complete defeat.

The 1991 war would have been impossible in 1981, or even in 1985.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 9:39PM

->”We had a choice to engage in both of these wars [Afghanistan and Iraq], but to do so would have encouraged the expansion of Iraq to dominate the entire area and guaranteed safety for the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and many hundreds more before and since. I don't see the alternative potential outcomes as viable for us in the long run, or even in the short run unless we were willing to accede to terrorist and economic blackmail.” [Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:

I believe that this an indefensible rationalization.

Especially indefensible do to its dependence upon “expansion of Iraq to dominate the entire area and guaranteed safety for the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and many hundreds more before and since.”

Neither Iraq, nor Iran, have the capability to dominate the Persian Gulf region.

If this is your personal reasoning, then I believe that you’ve misred events, and the conduct of the military operations in southwest and south-central Asia.

Big Leo| 4.6.09 @ 9:46PM

Paul,
You said, "Neither Iraq, nor Iran, have the capability to dominate the Persian Gulf region." presumably on the basis of the power of the US Fleet in the area. In Viet Nam, the North didn't have the power to dominate the region for the same reason, but only if we did not exercise our overwhelming air and sea power. That is exactly what we failed to do, and now the relatively weak North Vietnamese have effective control. And we still keep an active fleet in the area.

agni| 4.6.09 @ 10:01PM

The Russian Federation is the legal successor state to the USSR as far as all treaties, rights and responsibilities .

Nothing prevents Obama from drafting and submitting a new treaty as the NPT demands.

Such a treaty could only come into force if all ALL nuclear weapon states sign it. It could commit them to disarm in, say, 5 years.

Obama however has said that disarmament would not come in his lifetime.

Thophilous| 4.6.09 @ 10:27PM

Hello David Mathews,

Hmm… It is difficult to decide where to begin in responding to you. Let’s try for the historical perspective.

Republican and racist

I hope that you will bear with me for a bit as this may take a little time.

You might not recall, but the Republican Party was founded on idea that slavery was wrong. It was the democrat party that was in favor of not only keeping slavery legal but expanding it to territories that it had not been legal for slavery prior. Between 1861 and 1865 a war was fought. It was fought primarily between those states with republican administrations and those with democrat administration. Many lives were laid down to end that racist practice. And many were laid down to preserve it. As I recall your party supported dying for the belief that some men should be the property of others. We republicans have ALWAYS been of the opinion that no man should own another.

Let us move a bit farther back in time. Andrew Jackson (owner of 150 or so slaves), along with Thomas Jefferson (owner of 200 slaves), is hailed as one of the founding fathers of the Democrat party. As president, Mr. Jackson signed the “Indian removal Act” of 1830. This caused the forceful removal of approximately 45,000 Indians from Georgia, of which about 4,000 died on the “Trail of Tears”. That’s quite an illustrious history for the founders of the Democrat Party.

Let’s move forward again to 19 12, and the presidency of Mr. Woodrow Wilson. Early in his first term he instituted segregation based on race to the federal government. He also passed the first progressive income tax under the Revenue Act of 1913 and established the Federal Reserve.
He won re-election in 1916 under the promise not to get us involved in WWI but almost immediately broke that promise. The first peacetime draft was instituted by Wilson. The Sedition Act of 1918 made it a federal crime to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. So much for the first amendment.
U.S. citizens, including members of the Industrial Workers of the World union, were also imprisoned during World War I for their anti-war dissent under the provisions of the Sedition Act. Anti-war protesters were arrested by the hundreds as speaking out against the draft and the war became illegal under this law. Funny I don’t recall that happening under the G. W. Bush administration. Only democrats make dissent illegal and imprison their opponents.
The Espionage Act of 1917 makes it a crime “to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years.”
And also, “to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today's dollars) and 20 years in prison.” I have forgotten, how many protestors have been arrested, fined and imprisoned by G. W. Bush? Oh yeah, none.
The democrat party, under the guise of “Freedom of Choice”, has made an environment in which black children are being killed at an almost unheard of rate. At the present time, the Centers for Disease Control publish statistics for abortion. The latest figures show that for every 1000 live births by black women, 467 abortions are performed on black women.
Since Roe v. Wade about 50 million Americans have been killed by the means of abortion. In the Holocaust of Hitler’s “final solution to the Jewish question” about one in three Jews in Europe were killed. In Democrat America almost the same rate (31.8 percent) of executions are applied to black babies. Republicans want to stop the killing of children. Democrats support the killing of black people. Who is the racist?
Under Jim Crow laws in the south in the post reconstruction period, who held the reigns of local government? Wasn’t that the Democrats? Who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to preserve segregation? Wasn’t that George Wallace a democrat governor? Didn’t he run for the democratic presidential nomination three times?
Which current member of congress has been the kleagle or recruiter and exalted cyclopse, a position of leadership in the Ku Klux Klan? Why that would be Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Currently holding the position of President Pro Tempore of the senate and third in line of succession to the president.
The only way that I could be considered a racist, is that I support, advocate and speak out in favor of the Human Race. Now if you want to redefine who or what is human, then perhaps we can discuss that.

Christians Blaspheme Christ

If you were a Christian, then engaging you in a theological debate might prove worthwhile. However I have not seen you state your religious beliefs. You might as well say that Buddhist profane Buddha, or that Muslims dishonor Allah. Without an understanding of the specifics of the teachings of the religion, you would not be in a position to effectively criticize. Do you wish to define exactly what you mean by blasphemy? Do you wish to discuss the theological implications of the teachings of Christ vis a vie the political stands taken by the leaders of each party? Or discuss the history and teachings of the various churches?

But before that, let me ask you one simple question. Who do YOU say Jesus was?

That question, and how you answer it will have a much more profound effect on you, than anything else you will ever discuss.

WWII – Atomic bomb

There are several ways to approach this, depending on your assumptions. Is it your contention that the use of atomic weapons is inherently evil? Is it your assertion that the invasion of Japan would have been preferable? Is it your belief that starving the entire population of Japan to extinction, by means of blockade is preferable? Or do you maintain the belief that simply being at war is immoral and no resistance should be offered to aggressors?

To address the idea that atomic weapons are inherently evil, I would have to disagree. Any weapon, a nuke, a gun, a knife or a sharp stick or rock is amoral. It has no more morality or immorality in and of itself than any other object has. If I were to feed a poisonous mushroom to you, does that make the mushroom evil? No, it is the act of killing that may be moral or immoral, not the means by which the act is done. A knife, in the hands of a skilled surgeon, can do wonders to improve life, to correct disease and deficiencies. That same knife, in the hands of a criminal, can cause untold harm, hurt and pain. The knife itself has no morality. It is inherently amoral. The same can be said for any tool, including an atomic bomb.

Simply put, there is no “nice way” to kill people. There is no “socially acceptable” way for someone to be killed that is not ultimately unpleasant to them. People won’t say, “I’m glad that I was killed by napalm instead of a nuclear blast”. To think it makes a difference to the people being killed is worthy of ridicule.

Would the invasion of Japan have been preferable to you? Estimates of Allied war dead in an invasion of the Home Islands of Japan range from a low of 10,000 to a high of 1,000,000. Best guesses are in about the middle of this range with approximately 50,000 allied dead in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Japanese dead were estimated to have reached as high as 10,000,000. The war would have been prolonged for at least another year, and depending on how the occupation went, perhaps another ten. Ten or eleven million dead. As an alternative two bombs, dropped three days apart, ended the war. Total dead from the immediate effects were about 120,000. You are presented with two regrettable but none the less distinguishable post war environments. One in which you have 120,000 people killed and one where you have 11,000,000 people killed. Which do you choose?

The contention that the war could have ended without either an invasion or dropping the bombs assumes that by simply blockading the Japanese home islands that the Imperial Japanese Government could be persuaded to surrender. In 1940 the population of Japan was about 71,933,000. Of this 36.7% of the population was 0 – 14 years of age. The young are disproportionally affected by starvation in any blockade. You would have preferred us to starve 26.4 million children for a year or more while waiting for the adults to finally give up and surrender. You could have gotten a job advising Janet Reno how to handle the branch davidians at Waco. Well considering how THAT turned out, maybe the democrats should have followed a starvation scenario in Waco. More of those kids might be alive today.

Or do you contend that it is immoral to oppose fascism with force? How about communism? How about opposing any force? The concept that force or violence never solved anything is blatantly and manifestly untrue. More disputes have been solved by the application of force than any other method in human history. It is the proper and just use of force that makes humanity what it is. If you refuse to resist, then nothing you have, not your life, your labor, your property or family is safe from those that would use force to obtain their desires. Telling someone not to rape your daughter, but not resisting when you have the ability to is immoral. To stand and do nothing, gives your consent.

Iraq – 150,000 dead

The United States Military, like any military, does three things and they do them very well. They break things, they kill people, and they take territory. If you ask them to do only two of those things then they have a very difficult time of performing the mission. If you try to have them only do one of those things, they cannot do it at all.

The United States does not target civilians. The targets are military leaders or militarily important objects. The vast majorities of the deaths in Iraq were and are due to Iraqis killing Iraqis. Those deaths attributable to American force, are simply due to the proximity of civilians to the intended target. It is my understanding that we have taken extraordinary care in avoiding civilian casualties. Regrettably, in war, people die. In war, people suffer. The only moral thing to do with a war is end it as quickly as possible, with the aims that initiated the war accomplished. The use of “war on the cheap” or minimal use of force, does not end war quickly. It has been a dictum for more than 5,000 years, as written by Sun Tsu, in his book, The Art of War, that when a lion pounces on a rabbit it does so with all its’ strength. Only by using overwhelming force can one quickly end conflict.

Estimates are that Saddam Hussein killed about a million people during his reign. The simple fact is, his killing has stopped. Once the Iraqis stop killing each other then they can concentrate on living together in peace.

“You are as delusional as you are racist and uneducated. “
I think we have found something that we can finally agree upon. Since I have clearly demonstrated that we are not racists, then the premise that we are delusional is equally false.
You have mentioned several times our supposed lack of education. I believe that more properly you should be referring to our lack of indoctrination. We fail to march in goose step to your drum beat. We fail to submit quietly to your policies. Just a few years ago, your side was so proud to say that dissent is patriotic. Well that makes us patriotic.
I would like to leave you a couple of quotes from Mark Twain with regard to education.
Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
If I feel the need to respond to you some more I will do so at a later time. But as it stands I still have some guns to clean, a few bible chapters to read, and a government to plot the downfall of.
Heil Obama and see you at the rally sunshine.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 10:33PM

-->“America's dependence on foreign oil is at this point nearly absolute. We cannot run our economy without it.”[Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:

I’m glad the you didn’t say “our industry.”

American dependence on “foreign oil is at this point” is not even close to “nearly absolute.”

The overwhelming majority of American petroleum imports are not from the Persian Gulf region.

The majority of petroleum imports from the other members of our American-Anglo-French bloc of countries, especially Japan and India, are.

The American military, the world’s largest single energy consumer, is no question

dependent upon Persian Gulf petroleum, along with European and Japanese refining (America does not support its military, LITERALLY).

America continues to have substantial petroleum resources, mostly shut in, and conserved, circa 1971; 1979-93.

American coal reserves, also much of which were shut in, are also tremendous.

Looking at the ‘clearing out’ of the small domestic energy companies and the reform of the large energy corporations, 1979-98, the development of ethanol refining, refinery expansions, the chemical industry modernization’s, the modernization of maritime facilities, the increased energy exploration activity, domestically, the increased mining activity, domestically, all in the past ten years, considering the almost 50 years of work on enhanced oil recovery (especially employing CO2), the government-environmental-corporate alliances of the past five years, and the propaganda about “energy reliance,” “clean coal” and “green industries,” being disseminated, left and right, then it would appear that the American energy reserves are going to be brought
back online, and operated more efficiently than ever.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 10:48PM

-->“Thank God the British and French did not do the same [intervene] during our own civil war.” [Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:

A brief aside.

The British did intervene in the American Civil War:
Just enough to give false hope to the southern states in rebellion against the government.

There were no principles involved on the part of the British or French (or Danes, Dutch and Portuguese), except that of self interest.

It was in the interest of the British and French not to intervene militarily, or politically, on either side, and in the interest of the both them and the Dutch, Danes and Portuguese to close their ports to rebel commerce raiders.

Dr. Bill| 4.6.09 @ 11:15PM

You people miss the point of Mathews, he is crying for help. He hates himself and hates his father. Typically they suffered sexual abuse from the father. What we see here in an incoherent cry for help. They rage inside and cannot function normally. This analysis is one hundred percent accurate every time. There is one twise, after perversion the roles reverse, the boy as in Mathews enjoys the perversion and his father rejects his son due to the father being disgusted with the boy and the boys lack of ability. The father leaves the family to seek his perversion elsewhere leaving the Mathews boy raging with jealousy and anger. Once it reaches this stage there is nothing we can do except chemically restrain the Mathews boy if not he regresses further, hurting himself, over and over until its literally a suicide.

Seriously, we must reach out, the only way to help is to convince Mathews to go seek help and then once the chemical restraint is in place Mathews will have a bit of peace, not true piece, they are always haunted in there sleep thus they always suffer sleep deprivation but at least the waking hours are somewhat calm

Howard Ino| 4.6.09 @ 11:30PM

SEND A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS!

1. Obama is enacting his Fascist mission and public opinion will not sway him away from his march to the radical left!

2. Congress knows the difference between Conservative individuals protesting bad policy, and bus loads of ACORN paid demonstrators protesting for cigarettes and a few greenbacks!

Most ACORN protesters don't vote their conviction... they vote for cash! No cash... no vote!

Conservative voters create most of the jobs in America as small business owners and sit on local school boards.

Conservative voters give the highest percentage and dollars to charity and pay the majority of taxes by % and $.

Let YOUR Senator and Congressman know...

WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION!!!

Attend your local April 15th Tea Party...

Remember...
We have the power IF we are willing to use it!
Obama has the power if we DON'T!

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 11:32PM

->“So any power which threatens to monopolize the oil trade is threatening our national well being just as if they declared war on us.” [Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:

This is an interesting statement, amazingly made in the context of Iraq, and in the midst of squabbling about nuclear weapons, 'moral leadership,' and the war in the Pacific in WWII.

Of course, no single country was in a position to ‘threaten to monopolize the oil trade’ [petroleum is more accurate today] in 2003.

None are capable today.

So this is way too broadly phrased, and general, of a hypothetical, to bother addressing in detail, except to say that only a Declaration of War is equivalent to a Declaration of War.

However, if you view such as equivalent to a "declaration of war," then one could say, as some Japanese do, that you would find America guilty of a ‘declaration of war’ upon Japan in 1941, and that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was only the first battle in the war already ‘declared’ against it.

Louis, and the others here wouldn’t like that!
I wouldn't either, and we'd be off on another discussion.

But the ones Louis and his pals are squabbling with, probably would enjoy it.

One might be tempted to suspect that you’re being quite cynical posting this with this article Leo.

Paul Crowley| 4.6.09 @ 11:39PM

->“Some of the offenses of Iraq included shooting at allied airplanes in a zone they were allowed by the treaty to fly in and attempting to assassinate an ex-President. Both are acts of war.” [Big Leo|]

If these allegations constitute “acts of war” against the U.S.A. then the American government should have acted accordingly. It did not.

However, reprisals against Iraq were made for both cases.

The American naval and air strikes (bombardments) against Iraq (with minor assistance by “allies”) were made on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions, at the time the allegations were made.
American military forces responded with a missile bombardment in response to the allegation of an assassination plot.

All were past history and irrelevant to the situation in 2003.

Iraq was completely contained in 2003, with a broken military, an aging petroleum infrastructure (developed, 1961-1979, and prevented from modernization by the UN) [a 'declaration of war' against Iraq, by your standards, which, given the extreme conditions resulting from the monopolitzaiton of Iraqi oil trade, while not a declaration of war, certainly a war-like act], and so in no position, whatsoever, to disrupt, never mind monopolize, the “oil trade.”

->“Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and earlier of Iran demonstrate their willingness to go to war in order to dominate the area.” [Big Leo|]

To be willing to go to war and to be able to go to war, are not the same.

Iraq invaded Iran, fought an eight-year war, at tremendous cost, that resulted in stalemate. Iraq could not defeat Iran.

Iraq invaded, and VERY briefly occupied Kuwait.

->“Their capacity to win a conventional war against the United States is of course nonexistent,” [Big Leo|]

Demonstrated to, and fully learned by Iraq, in its 1991 defeat when its military forces were driven from Kuwait.

->“but their ability to disrupt the entire area by financing terrrorism is without doubt.”
[Big Leo|]

Iraq provided no financing to any groups engaging in terrorism that engaged in terrorism
against the U.S.A.

As to this “ability” and “without doubt:”

First it is irrevelant in the instance of the American-Anglo led invasion and conquest of Iraq in 2003, the subsequent occupation, 2003-04, and the continued presence and dominance of the country since, for the reason just stated.

Second: In nothing more substantial than your own mind, perhaps.

Third: In reality, very much in doubt.

Iraq had trouble feeding its own people by 2003, never mind providing financing to
“terrorism” directed against America or Americans.

Denise-Mary| 4.6.09 @ 11:57PM

For Thophilous: MAGNIFICENT post! Many thanks for such sound, articulate arguing points.

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 12:13AM

Paul,
Your thesis seems to be that we invaded Iraq for no reason and to no good end. For the reasons I gave and many more, I don't find your argument convincing. The idea that Iraq wasn't capable of any effective action, and that it wouldn't be at any time in the foreseeable future, is most optimistic. The only mistake we made in Iraq was not finishing them in 1991 when we should have.

RM| 4.7.09 @ 12:27AM

So, it will take some time to destroy our nuclear arsenal (or sell it, whatever). We will likely take a "no nukes" pledge until then.

What do you think Iran will do when it gets the bomb, in, what - 18 months? Think it will hold it over our head and insist we implement sharia law here? Or will it actually use the bomb to bring in the mahdi? Or both?

Please, dear God, if it is the latter, let me and my family be near ground zero.

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 12:43AM

“Paul,
You said, ‘Neither Iraq, nor Iran, have the capability to dominate the Persian Gulf region.’ presumably on the basis of the power of the US Fleet in the area. In Viet Nam, the North didn't have the power to dominate the region for the same reason, but only if
we did not exercise our overwhelming air and sea power. That is exactly what we failed to do, and now the relatively weak North Vietnamese have effective control. And we still keep an active fleet in the area.” [Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:

I don’t entirely follow your point, or question.
You didn’t make or ask one clearly.

->“presumably on the basis of the power of the US Fleet in the area.”

No. On the basis of all of the combined militaries of the American-Anglo-French bloc of countries, not only the military units active, at any given time, under Central Command, or the new U.S. 5th Fleet, which remains active in the Persian Gulf.

All of the Advanced Bases, and forward industrial processing capabilities in the region, listed previously, and developed since.

In addition to all of the resources listed already, including the Advanced Bases in Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, air and naval, there are the new Advanced Bases, air bases, built in Iraq, 2003-08, which the Iraqi resistance movements couldn’t even slow down the construction of, and the expansion of command and control and naval bases in the Persian Gulf states, developed during this period.

I’m a controversial guy, but a realistic one: The war was wrong and occupation is wrong.

However, contrary to popular perception, the war was won, March-April 2003.

Now the modernization of the Iraqi petroleum infrastructure, at least in the south can begin.

->“In Viet Nam, the North didn't have the power to dominate the region for the same reason, but only if we did not exercise our overwhelming air and sea power. That is exactly what we failed to do,”

This is true. It is precisely why North Vietnam defeated the Republic of Vietnam in 1975.
American ground forces never faced the reformed north Vietnamese army (from what I’d call the ‘Chinese People’s Liberation Army’ Model of 1950-69 to the ‘Russian Red Army Model’ of 1969-75 (a modern conventional force).

That army did not invade the south until after American combat units were fully withdrawn (the navy riverine and marines by 1971 and the army by early 1972).

Modern conventional armies require Lines of Communication more substantial than jungle trails.
The lines of communication constructed in the north, 1968-72, maritime, rail, road, air, information technology, were left unscathed by American air and naval forces, who were the Americans actually engaged in the fighting, 1971-72.
That support was withdrawn, January 1973-April 1973.
Vietnam is very much like Korea in reverse.
Operation Linebacker II was great R&D, however, the foundations of our military modernization of 1986-88 (developed 1973-85; battle tested against the Libyans and Iranians in 1986 & 1988).

-->“and now the relatively weak North Vietnamese have effective control.” [Big Leo|]

Vietnam is a single, unified country, and has been since 1975.
The new government received the infrastructure erected by America in the South and by Russia in the
north, without which it could not have invaded and occupied Laos in 1978 and Cambodia in 1979, making it a small regional power by 1980.

It is now part of the American-Anglo-French Bloc, as a full member of SEATO.
Military maneuvers with India provide for uniformity in military practice.

-->“And we still keep an active fleet in the area.” [Big Leo|]

The whole world is active as American naval fleets (see my explanation to Louis, about what a fleet is).

In this instance, it’s not clear to me whether your are referring to the 5th Fleet or to the 7th Fleet.

The 5th Fleet, comprises the Persian Gulf. 1 or 2 aircraft carrier groups are usually operating under it.

The 7th Fleet comprises the western Pacific and Indian Oceans (and used to include the Persian Gulf, back when. . .). The old standard was 3 active aircraft carrier groups in 7th Fleet. Routine patrol was primarily in the western Pacific until 1971-72, when the first carrier group was based in Japan, and regular patrol of the Indian Ocean began.

5th and 7th Fleets, and all of the military unites in all of the Advanced Bases in the region, support the Central Command in south-central Asia, now including the advance into Pakistan begun openly last September.

Carrier groups continue to alternate between 6th, 7th and 5th fleets, routinely, alternating between support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Central Command, the new Africa Command, and Europe Command (the Balkan peninsula operations, which never ended).

Japanese air and naval forces already have much of the responsibility for patrolling about the same area of the northwest Pacific that the Imperial Japanese navy had in 1940. My guess is that much of the responsibility for the Indian Ocean, probably including Diego Garcia, will be passed to the Indians here in the near future.

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 12:50AM

-->Big Leo| 4.6.09

Hi Leo:

I believe that addresses everything I said and would, and what came after.

Again. I’m not what could be called an isolationist.

As noted before, my primary observations in my original post were that

“This essay [Homnick’s] is absurd, and pure misdirection.”

That Obama’s speech in Prague, was the same: An example of perfidy (“betrayal by faith,” or ‘trust’) via dissembling (misdirection).

I don't believe for one moment that the U.S.A. will disarm, or reduce the military, during the Obama administration, nuclear or otherwise.

Reduction of our military forces to a force maintained for genuinely defensive purposes, rather than raw, naked aggression, would be good, but it is not going to happen.

Now, off to bed. . .

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 12:52AM

P.S.

I don't believe for one minute that it's all only about petroleum (i.e. "Oil").

Big Leo| 4.7.09 @ 12:58AM

Paul says, "I don't believe for one minute that it's all only about petroleum (i.e. "Oil")." Correct! It's also about ending one of the worst tyrannies in the world.

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 1:34AM

-->“Your thesis seems to be that we invaded Iraq for no reason and to no good end. For the reasons I gave and many more, I don't find your argument convincing. The idea that Iraq wasn't capable of any effective action, and that it wouldn't be at any time in the foreseeable future, is most optimistic. The only mistake we made in Iraq was not finishing them in 1991 when we should have.” [Big Leo| ].

Hi Leo:
Sorry, I didn’t see this.

It’s your own statements and attempts at rationalizations made in response to mine that are unconvincing.

The “thesis” made in addressing the statements that you made that I disagreed with, was made plainly: That the invasion of Iraq was wrong and completely unjustified.

To be plain, the invasion was an act of raw, naked aggression and conquest.

This was the first time in its history that America has attacked and conquered a country that our government did not claim to have taken part in attacks against us, but precisely the opposite: The President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Adviser all stated clearly, 8 months after the end of the war, during the occupation, that Iraq did not take part in the attacks against this country.

->“The idea that Iraq wasn't capable of any effective action, and that it wouldn't be at any
time in the foreseeable future, is most optimistic.”

As noted, because of the above, this is irrelevant to justness of invading another country (by pre-reformed American and pre-reformed religions standards).

The physical reality of all events, 1991-2003 through to the present demonstrate the “is most optimistic” to be complete nonsense.

->“The only mistake we made in Iraq was not finishing them in 1991 when we should have.”

We had no justification to do so.

The 1991 war was under the United Nations organization, with the mandate to evict Iraqi
forces from Kuwait.

Additionally, in 1991, it could not have been done with the ease with which the defeat of Iraq took place in 2003.

A ground offensive in 1991 would have been a much more difficult fight.

It would have run the risk of Iraq using the chemical weapons it had against our ground
forces.

Iraq was disarmed itself of its chemical weapons, due to the cease fire provisions and then was softened up by continuous aerial and missile bombardment, 1991-2003, under pretense of UN no-fly zone violations.
Disarmament and 12 years of softening up the country is what allowed the rapid ground offensive, March-April 2003.

This country's raw, naked aggression, and your own statements, demonstrate what said I before: This is a different country.

This is now a country of moral midgets.

America is more British, than American any longer: Perfidious describes this country’s government now.

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 1:51AM

->“The conservatives are attempting, vainly, to morally justify the . . . slaughter of over 100,000 Iraqis during the Bush War.” [David Mathews]

Which is pathetic.

And now self-styled liberal propagandists are cheering the Joint Chiefs of Staff and State Department as they continues the conquest of Iraq, of the Clinton and G.W. Bush adminstrations, the expeditions into Pakistan, begun in September, and continuation of the conquests and occupations on the Balkan peninsula, military expeditions into Somalia (Somalia and the Balkans never ended), conducted during the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations, and further advance into central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa initiated during the G.W. Bush administration.

This has been reduced to a bankrupt country, with a perfidious government, populated by moral midgets.

pete the mediocre| 4.7.09 @ 2:40AM

I agree that it is a small point relative to the nonsense that "The Japanese did not believe in surrender, nor compromise." It was the American-Anglo-Chinese alliance that did not believe in negotiation (i.e. “compromise”), not the Japanese government.
You need to read more, Paul. This is absolutely incorrect. The Japanese military leaders were not open to negotiation.

As to the 7th Fleet; here is the history. Maybe you can get someone to read it to you. http://www.c7f.navy.mil/history.htm

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 7:13AM

->“You need to read more, Paul. This is absolutely incorrect. The Japanese military leaders were not open to negotiation.” [pete the mediocre]

Hi Pete:

You’re wrong again.

The American-Anglo-Chinese war goals were public, 1943-1945.

The war goal was “Unconditional Surrender” (which by definition, removes negotiation).

Unconditional surrender was never a war goal of the Imperial Japanese government.

Japan began the war in an attempt to force a negotiated settlement favorable to Japan.

->“As to the 7th Fleet; here is the history. Maybe you can get someone to read it to you.” [pete the mediocre]

I’m familiar with the history of the U.S. 7th Fleet, including when it was commissioned, and what it was originally commissioned formed for.

I explained to you above what an American naval fleet is.

As I stated above, you statements were wrong.:

“Paul Crowley, Your statement that the &th; fleet did not exist on Dec. 7th, 1941 splits
hairs and is in fact not correct. The fleet that would be renamed the ‘7th’ in 1943 did in
fact exist as the ‘Southwest Pacific Force.] " [pete the mediocre|]

Once again, Pete: The U.S. 7th Fleet did not exist in 1941.

Louis Jenkins| 4.7.09 @ 8:45AM

Wikipedia is a less than solid resource for info, however, for a quick search it can do in a pinch. Regardless, the US navy was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. An embargo was placed on the Japanese for their actions in China, and they struck back by military means.

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 8:52AM

->“As to the 7th Fleet; here is the history. Maybe you can get someone to read it to you.” [pete the mediocre]

Hi Pete:

I’ll repost my initial response, that included addressing American naval fleets, and that you responded to above.

I’ll emphasize my point made earlier, that you obviously lack familiarity with the subject of American naval fleets.

By the same unsound reasoning that you are employing, then I could claim to have served in the present-day U.S. 5th Fleet, and in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) unified command, U.S.Central Command, solely due to having served aboard both an American guided missile cruiser, and a guided missile destroyer that were on station in the Persian Gulf, in 1980-81 and in 1984, respectively, in spite of the fact that neither U.S. 5th Fleet, nor U.S. Central Command existed at either time. The 5th Fleet was not re-commissioned until well after I was long out of the U.S. Navy.

By the same unsound reasoning that you employ, I could also claim to have been on commands that served under JCS U.S. Africa Command while on a guided missile destroyer, with the America carrier group, that was part of the operations against Libya in
March and April 1986. Those operations were under JCS U.S. European Command at the time and Africa Command was only established by the JCS during the G.W. Bush administration.

There is no "hair splitting" on this.

It is not merely a matter of renaming commands.

I don’t question your reading comprehension skills, but your choice of reading material, and what you may limit it to, may bear scrutiny.

Your critical thinking and reasoning skills, clearly leave a great deal to be desired.

You should learn more about what you are talking, or writing, about before taking such staunch positions.

These aren't even controversial.

Our original exchange that you are responding to here was:

==>begin

-->“Paul Crowley, Your statement that the &th; fleet did not exist on Dec. 7th, 1941 splits hairs and is in fact not correct. The fleet that would be renamed the ‘7th’ in 1943 did in fact exist as the ‘Southwest Pacific Force.] " [pete the mediocre|]

I agree that it is a small point relative to the nonsense that "The Japanese did not believe in surrender, nor compromise."

It was the American-Anglo-Chinese alliance that did not believe in negotiation (i.e. “compromise”), not the Japanese government.However, since Louis Jenkins saw fit to include “The U.S. 7th Fleet,” then I saw fit to correct his error.You’re also wrong.The American naval fleets in existence on 7 December 1941 were the U.S. Pacific Fleet (elements of which were at Pearl Harbor on 7 December) and the U.S. Asiatic Fleet in the western Pacific.

-->“Changing the name does not negate the fact that the fleet existed.” [pete the mediocre|]

The U.S. 7th Fleet did not exist in 1941.

The names, and nature, of military commands are absolutely critical. American naval fleets are formed, and given names or numerical designations, for the purpose of command and control, via the Fleet Commander-in-Chief (during WWII, now Fleet
Commander) and his staff, of the respective fleet (Vice Admiral rank).

American naval fleets are usually formed to cover geographic areas. Individual ships, task groups (now renamed “battle groups”), task forces (now renamed “battle forces”), entering and leaving those geographic areas, leave or enter the command region of the respective Fleet Commanders (i.e. cease to be, or become part of, a particlular fleet).

The U.S. 7th Fleet did not exist in 1941.

If you don’t like my corrections, then just blame them on your lack of familiarity with the subject, my familiarity with it, and on my being an ex U.S.S. Okahoma City, CG-5 (“Press On Regardless”), sailor at the time that she was flagship, U.S. 7th Fleet (“Ready Power For Peace”).

You may think me a "pedant,” if you like, but I would disagree when response like yours are made, because such details do matter.Seeing the sergeants being instructed to tell the young jarheads and squids at Fallujah in 2004 the pap that they were "doing the same thing as the marines at Iwo Jima and Hui City" (a bizarre pairing to begin with), was disturbing enough to compel me to address this kind of nonsense.

As I said elsewhere, this is a different country.

==>end

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 9:24AM

-->“Wikipedia is a less than solid resource for info, however, for a quick search it can do in a pinch. Regardless, the US navy was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. An embargo was placed on the Japanese for their actions in China, and they struck back by military means.” [Louis Jenkins]

Good morning Louis:

Obviously I agree with you that “Wikipedia is a less than solid resource for info.”

However, because of that, I would disagree that “for a quick search it can do in a pinch.”

I noticed how poor many of the articles were, and how many included gross errors, when I first saw it in 2002-03.

I don’t use it at all and am not pleased to see it being so widely referenced these days.

->“An embargo was placed on the Japanese for their actions in China.” [Louis Jenkins]

No. Japan had been in Manchuria since 1931 and in northern China, and the Chinese ports, since 1937.

No Amercian embargoes were imposed on Japan due to their actions in China by the Hoover administration, due to American policy of neutrality.

No American embargoes were imposed upon Japan by the Roosevelt administration, in spite of the modifications on American neutrality, and the authority given the executive brance, 1935-41 (an involved topic in its own right).

The American embargoes in 1940 and 1941 were placed upon Japan due to Japan’s actions in Tonkin and Cochinchina, French Indochina (present-day
Vietnam).

Japan entered French Indochina, with the consent of the French government, to shut down the flow of war materiel, primarily American, British, Dutch and French, entering French Indochinese ports and then shipped by rail to Chinese forces in southern China
(among other uses).

I would also point out that the Japanese ability to coerce the French government into allowing entry into French Indochina, was in no small part due to British and American actions following the withdrawal of France from the war in 1940: In particular, the British naval blockade in the Mediterranean Sea, the British attacks upon French capital ships in north Africa, the British invasion of Syria, and the American pressures applied upon the French government, forcing France’s aircraft carrier to remain in the Caribbean.

Without her capital ships free to transit to the western Pacific, or the ability to reinforce the garrisons, then there was little that France could do to prevent Japanese coercion in French Indochina in 1940 and 1941.

I readily concede, that little of this is focused upon in internet sources, and much distracts from these incidents. At best, only the particular incidents themselves can be found on the internet.

->“the US navy was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. An embargo was placed on the Japanese . . . and they struck back by military means.” [Louis Jenkins]

I fully agree that Japan “struck back by military means.”

Japan started the war with America, and then declared war against America.

I’ve certainly never argued otherwise.

Be very clear, I make no defense for the actions of the Empire of Japan, 1931-45 (actually, 1868-1945). I’m an American, not an imperialist.

Also, please be sure that I didn't intend the 7th Fleet correction as a "cheap shot."

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 9:39AM

-->“No American embargoes were imposed upon Japan by the Roosevelt administration, in spite of the modifications on American neutrality, and the authority given the executive brance, 1935-41 (an involved topic in its own right).”

Due to Japanese actions in China.

Which should have been clear from the context, but I’ll note it explicitly, just the same.

The Roosevelt administration placed the embargoes of 1940 and 1941, citing Japan’s actions in French Indochina (present-day Vietnam).

pete the mediocre| 4.7.09 @ 10:04AM

Paul,
A friend of mine changed his name after he became an adult. He did not begin to exist at that time.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance and pomposity.

Paul Crowley| 4.7.09 @ 12:08PM

-->“Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance and pomposity.” [pete the mediocre]

Hi Pete:
I disagree with your prepositions.

I’m a lot of things, but arrogant isn’t one of them.

Neither am I being pompous, but only speaking as clearly and plainly as I’m able to. Perhaps you mistake that “pomposity.”

I am ignorant of a great many things, usually aware of it, and tend to stay silent when I am.

When I misspeak, and am ‘called on it,’ then I’m more than willing to concede it, and take my comeuppance, like a man, or look further into the matter if unsure.

-->“A friend of mine changed his name after he became an adult. He did not begin to exist at that time.” [pete the mediocre]

Truth to tell, I found this statement bizarre upon first reading it.

A man changing his name is completely irrelevant to the formation, naming and commissioning of American naval fleets, if that is your meaning by this.

As noted, the commissioning of the 7th fleet was not merely a name change.

bill kotcher| 4.7.09 @ 1:45PM

To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question was it right to bomb Japan, was it right to bomb Iraq. Its foolish to attempt to persuade those who disagree. In one case you may be argueing with a fool or dimwit. In the other case you may be argueing with someone who is just ignorant of all the facts. In either case the result is the same.

Civilian deaths will always happen in any war. Thank god that in Iraq they are a fraction of what the deaths in previous wars. Its hard to get truthful numbers, 100,000 civilian deaths is an inflated number. The simple fact is that if so many civilians were dying by the hands of our military our military would not be so welcomed by the simple Iraqi people.

The USA has a right to attack Iraq, we have the right to attack any tyrant in the world. Now some disagree, ignorantly. I ask them, one must look at it this way and ask themselves;

What right does an American have to attack the tyrant that forced said American to be a refugee in the first place.

Yes, us refugees who have seen our family and friends raped and murdered have no right to attack the tyrants and dictators of the world.

Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, read what the Japanese leaders say about this subject, the Japanese leaders statements contradict those who believe the use of Nuclear weaponery was not needed.

Smorgasbord| 4.7.09 @ 3:35PM

I honestly believe Obama wants to be KING, not president. The USA is a FREE society, and he will never be KING in a REPUBLIC (the USA is not a democracy). I believe Obama and his people are creating problems and taking advantage of existing problems to make them worse so that the USA will fail.

Obama sees a friend as anyone who will help him in his quest to gain his crown. A strong military would fight back if someone tried to take over the USA, so he is reducing it and demoralize it. He sees them as the enemy. He also wants to start a "Civilian National Security Force" that is as strong as the military, and funded like the military. Remember when King Obama was campaigning he promised he would start one? What did Adolf Hitler call his?

Obama has shown his contempt for leaders of our friends in other free countries, and aligning himself with leaders of dictatorships. This tells me a lot about what his intentions are.

Obama knows who HIS friends are, and they aren't people in a free society. They will not VOLUNTARILY help him to become King Obama. You align yourself with those who you respect most. Obama respects getting what he wants at any cost.

I think Obama wants the USA to fail and be taken over. Obama thinks the ones who take it over will be so thankful for his help that they will make him KING. Then he can say, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." Now I understand why he couldn't keep from laughing during his 60 Minutes interview. He knows they are helping him become King Obama, and will be subject to HIS rule soon.

Michele San Pietro| 4.7.09 @ 4:11PM

To throw the bomb was the only solution in 1945. An overland invasion of Japan would have left many more people dead. The Japanese madness in world war II cost ten million innocent lives: let's never forget that!

OR| 4.7.09 @ 4:31PM

Smorgasbord...you're one nutty right-winger, I'll give ya that.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 4:43PM

Nah, we know the troops' 'love' was a setup, Obama Drules. Obama probably offered them more R&R if they pretended to like him for the photo-op. LOL!

Jim| 4.7.09 @ 11:14PM

Dave, Why no mention of your left-wing heroes, Mao, Stalin, Uncle Ho, Pol pot, Hitler? You are nothing more than a liberal obama cyborg. Is tough going through life unemcumbered by the thought process? You aren't even a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 7:08AM

-->“Paul says, "I don't believe for one minute that it's all only about petroleum (i.e."Oil")." Correct! It's also about ending one of the worst tyrannies in the world” [Big Leo|]

Hi Leo:

Sorry, I didn’t see this yesterday morning.

I came back today, hoping to see some elaboration on your comments about Vietnam, but don’t see any.

=>“It's also about ending one of the worst tyrannies in the world” [Big Leo|]

‘This is not a justification for invading, conquering, occupying and imposing our will upon a country that did not attack us, and did not take part in attacks against us.

Not in the pre-reformed America, anyway.

At this point and time, it’s also complete, discredited nonsense.

This kind of rationalization was common to the Russians, Communist Chinese, and Cubans & other satellites, during the years of the Cold War, 1946-89.

I was on the American, not the Russian, side during the Cold War.

Be clear, I said I supported the war, March-December 2003, but “turned firmly against the occupation of Iraq, and the war earlier that year, in December 2003, when President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Rice and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld all went on public television, on the Sunday-morning interview programs, and stated plainly that they had never said that Iraq was tied to al-Qaida or took part in the attacks against us on 11 September 2001.”

However, I never accepted, or supported the "liberation” pap being propagated by the editorialists and newsreaders in 2003.

America did not propagate "liberation" of Germans and Japanese as a war goal in World War II, or use it as a rationalization for occupation. “Lliberation” was the rationalization propagated by the U.S.S.R. for its continued occupations.

President Bush didn’t take up this rationalization publicly until later, when attempts to rationalize the invasion and occupation became as desperate as yours have been here, especially during the 2004 presidential campaign. In fact, your ratinalizations are only repeats of discredited rationalizations, now moved on from since the conquest is now an
accomplished fact.

Iraq has been unjustly invaded, counquered, occupied and the American-led bloc of “allies” has imposed its will upon the country (to use descriptive terminiology).

Again, it was the Russians, Communist Chinese, and their satellites, such as the Cubans, pre-1989, who had the gall to miserable conquests such as this “liberation.”

No. I don’t believe for on second that the American military, with the aid of a tiny contingent of “allies, supported by European, Japanese, and Saudi production, were sent more than eight thousands miles away (from the east, more than 10,000 from the west) to invade and conquer a country so as to end “one of the worst tyrannies in the world”

Sorry “Comrade Leo,” I just don’t buy it.

Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 8:37AM

=>“It's also about ending one of the worst tyrannies in the world” [Big Leo|]

Hi Leo

That address Iraq, which wasn't soelely what I was referring to with my earlier comment.

In case, it wasn't only what you were referring to either then:

What "tyranny" are you referring to?

What "tryranny" do you believe that this is all about ending, precisely?

ruth| 4.8.09 @ 10:32AM

Thophilous, I'm going to save your post so I can refer to it in the future. Thank you so much for your great comment.

Nick| 4.8.09 @ 1:00PM

Mr. Crowley,

I didn't read all your posts but two points jumped out at me, so if you addressed these already I apologize.

First, it would have been just as easy to oust Saddam during Operation Desert Storm as our forces did in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I served in Desert Shield/Storm as a helicopter mechanic (in the rear with the gear). I wasn't a general but I was there and know something about it. The Iraqi forces were inferior to ours in every way. And in 1991 Saddam hadn't spent 12 years burying 500 pound bombs and other munitions around the country and training the Fedayeen Saddam to fight an insurgency. If GHWB had order us to Bagdad, I would have hated it, but it probably would have saved our forces from being sniped at and picked off for over 5 years.

Second, you wrote: "Iraq provided no financing to any groups engaging in terrorism that engaged in terrorism against the U.S.A." Does that mean Saddam never would have? Besides no one ever said he did or used it as the only reason to go to war. The point was if he had no problem supporting terrorists publicly, is it not logical he would have no qualms covertly helping terrorists hit the U.S.A.? After 9/11, should President Bush have gambled with all our lives that he wouldn't. One thing is now irrefutable that was not then: Saddam will NEVER kill any American by supporting a terrorist attack, thanks to the forces of OIF. And that is a good thing.

Heather| 4.8.09 @ 9:49PM

I remember that Saddam paid the family of every suicide bomber $5,000.00. That was a huge inducement for poor kids in the Middle East to blow themselves up. Good riddance to that monster, I'm glad he's gone.

Lingerie| 9.11.09 @ 2:28AM

sexy lingerie lingerie