Posted on 08/11/2005 11:09:43 AM PDT by 68skylark
"The machine gun was considered so horrible that it prevented wars from occuring."
The crossbow was considered so unethical and immoral that it was outlawed by the Pope in the 1100s (or around that Medieval time period).
Folks we are in for a lot of work... big lie propaganda is cheap and easy to mass produce, it just that simple make stuff up.
The trick is to do it in mass so it overwhelms true facts...the left has this tactic down pat...
The only counter to big lie propaganda is hard truth, facts and logic in equal mass...and that takes hard work...
An to be blunt you don't beat the lefts big lie propaganda with your own...it the lefts game
"Our first amendment is our Achilles heal."
We had the 1st amendment during Plains Indian Wars, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War.
I understand your point. Presumably in earlier wartimes, the "free press" was more patriotic, or at least balanced, and not openly hoping American forces will fail.
But I also believe there was often a "loyal opposition" voice in the press or public domain.
But who could oppose WWII? If so, on what basis?
Don't blame the first amendment. People are responsible for what is happening in the media. They have responsibilities they aren't meeting. The marketplace is beginning to respond to that threat too.
BINGO! The deadliest weapon in the terrorist's arsenal is the New York Times!
What is not mentioned is what happens when you use a JIN on a human target. Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, the first fielded electro-blaster. Silent, invisible, portable. Hit someone with about 50,000 volts, at about 50 amps, and you have a crispy critter...
You're right. It's sad to watch it happen all over again.
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
Wretchard wrocks!
Yet even the greatest animosities of our current era seldom reach the depth of the hatred that existed between General William Tecumseh Sherman and the newspapermen who followed his army. Enraged by newspaper listings of the Union order of battle prior to engagements, Sherman banished reporters from his lines and referred to them as "dirty newspaper scribblers who have the impudence of Satan." A reporter for the New York Tribune wrote that being "a cat in hell without claws is nothing to [being] a reporter in General Sherman's army." His brethren were not so kind; they circulated reports of Sherman's alleged insanity.
The tension reached a head when a reporter for the New York Herald, Thomas Knox, defied Sherman's orders and forwarded an account of the Union defeat at Chickasaw Bluffs. Sherman had Knox arrested and bound over for court-martial.
The reporter responded, "Of course, General Sherman, I have no feelings against you personally, but you are regarded as the enemy of our set and we must in self-defense write you down."
The court found Knox guilty and ordered him banished from the theater. As the Herald was a strong supporter of Lincoln, the President countermanded the sentence on the condition that Sherman's superior, U. S. Grant, agreed. Grant would do no such thing, and Knox was forced to appeal to the man he defamed.
Sherman's reply: "Come with a sword or musket in your hand, prepared to share with us our fate ... and I will welcome you as a brother; but come as you now do expecting me to ally the reputation and honor of my country and my fellow-soldiers with you as the representative of the Press which you yourself say makes so slight a difference between truth and falsehood and my answer is Never!"
Knox left the theater.
Source: Joseph H. Ewing. "The New Sherman Letters." American Heritage, July-August 1987.
"What is not mentioned is what happens when you use JIN on a human target. Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, the first fielded electro-blaster. Solent, invisable, portable. Hit someone with about 50,000 volts, at about 50 amps, and you have a crispy critter..."
Would you like a side order of fries with that?
Sure, but the "proxy wars" in Korea, then Vietnam, then Afghanistan, etc. showed that great powers could still do an awful lot of harm to each other without openly declaring war. Korea was quite a shock to all who thought the advent of nuclear weapons had really made all war a thing of the past, but Stalin and Mao both recognized that the moral and political restraints in the west meant that no one would be nuking them over Korea.
I think you may have misunderstood what the author is trying to say.
This "home field advantage" is a more accurate description of what is happening in Iraq today -- the IEDs are simply one method by which it is carried out. This factor explains a number of cases throughout history in which a local fighting force was able to defeat a better-equipped adversary (the American Revolution, Russia's victory over Germany at Stalingrad, America's loss in Vietnam, etc.).
The two cases the author cites -- submarines and bombers -- are classic examples of one side taking advantage of two specific aspects of warfare (the sea and the skies) in which a country does not maintain an advantage of familiarity. Since these two areas are where technology is more important than local familiarity (nobody lives under the sea or in the sky), a local military force is not necessarily any more competent than a foreign force. The use of submarines and bombers by the U.S. in World War II, for example, was as effective in and around Japan as it would have been in and around New York City.
Those four men were my friends from my old unit, 2nd Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, Georgia Army National Guard. I knew all four of them personally. From what I heard from other friends in Iraq, it was 5 each 200 pound bombs essentially daisy chained together.
I'm really sorry to hear about your connection with these soldiers. They're heroes for serving their state and country, and for working to liberate the oppressed.
Thanks. My former brigade has lost 14 so far, 8 of whom I've known personally.
Thanks for your service, btw.
There are quite a few Iraqis (I have no idea how many) who are working with us to defeat terrorists.
And there are quite a few foreigners (I have no idea how many) who are terrorists.
The terrorists probably have a little stronger claim to be the "home team" than the good guys do, but the situation is muddled.
Yes, there have been wars by proxy. But these are but mere shadows of the horrors of WWI and WWII. They do not fit the 'total war' model.
I am not saying that nuclear weapons prevent indirect wars. Obviously they don't. And nuclear weapons will not protect us from war forever. Eventually conventional weapons will scale up to their power (and some nuclear weapons will scale down in power) and defenses will be made against them. The nuclear weapon will then not be thought of as absurd or overly destructive. Nonetheless, for 60 years (probably an unprecedented period in history) there has been no direct wars between world powers.
They say the exact same thing on DU. It's odd. Don't get me wrong, they're totally upside down, but they say the exact same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.