Replies

Excuse me ... WHERE IS THE BIG-BIG-BARF ALERT!!

Our President does not have to lie to do what's right for America. He just does it - whether or not the dems approve.

Who keeps posting this Rockwell Shit here, anyway?

Graybird, the moral is simple. Never forget the pecking order's surprises. Today's superpower is tomorrow's conquered state. Yesterday's overlooked mob is often the ruler of tomorrow. Never underestimate the third world. And NEVER be complacent about barbarians !!!

William McKinley would call this tripe balderdash.

So I'll do it for him.

You mean like... "I did not have sex with that woman!"
Or... "I smoked it but I didn't inhale".
Or... How about the jovial face of Bill Clinton as he was walking away from the Ron Brown memorial, which turned immediately to a mournful face when he discovered a camera was following him... Sick!

The author and other leftists have no coping mechanism for the current situation.

Having never encountered anyone who wants to commit genocide for the fun of it, they can't conceive that such people exist.

Following 9-11, their response was to try to find out what Al-Qaeda wants. What Islamists and their state sponsors want is for everyone not in their clique to die a violent death as quickly and painfully as possible, starting with all Americans. That's the totality of their political program and war aims.

The early nuclear powers were circumspect about sharing nuclear weapons. Starting with Pakistan, the attitude regarding proliferation is "mi casa, su casa."

If we were hit, the state or group responsible wouldn't announce themselves. Bush would announce the culprit, and the putz who wrote the article would call him a lier.

The same people who are blaming Bush now would accuse him of the detonation.

Regardless of the level of violence directed against us, the left's response would be to identify with the killers, and scapegoat anyone who proposed to resist the killers.

Presidents lie to justify war? Yes, they have. Just as true, antiwar idealist figures lie to justify themselves.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the maneuvers by which he hoped to plunge the nation once again into the European cauldron. Unsuccessful in his naval provocations of the Germans in the Atlantic, he eventually pushed the Japanese to the wall by a series of hostile economic-warfare measures, issued clearly unacceptable ultimatums, and induced them to mount a desperate military attack, most devastatingly on the US forces he concentrated at Pearl Harbor.

Oh, here we go again..."Pushed the Japanese to the wall..."

I have fresh-as-a-daisy memories of rhetorically beating bloody this nonsense with the aluminum baseball bat of truth when Harry Browne penned his infamous "When Will We Learn?" column September 12, 2001.

#367: HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"
To: Derville

I asked you: "How many people did the [Japanese] oil embargo kill?"
You reply: Did you laugh derisively when Bush the Elder and his supporters,including Limbaugh,described a potential embargo of oil by Saddam as a legitimate cause for war?
What I remember is Hussein being given half a year by Bush the Elder to evacuate Kuwait before a single bomb dropped on Iraqi soil.
Successive regimes in our country have taken military action arrogantly against many and frequently where our interest was,at least,highly suspect.As a result,Browne's point as I understand it,we may be reaping the whirlwind.
What people like you can't get through your skulls is that just because some of us don't subscribe to Browne's ~~Pollyanna~~ Barney philosophy doesn't mean we all shout "my country wrong or right!" The history books are filled with suggestions and baldfaced evidence that "American interests" were really simply corporate interests and nothing more. I am not denying that -- I wouldn't dare. Capiche?
Your assertion that we were some kind of altruists in confronting the Japanese rather than Imperial rivals gives me little hope.This arrogant and deluded posture that it was the U.S.'s duty to save the yellow peoples from one of their own is not only untrue,but the inverse corollary that we know what's good for everyone laughable.
What a lying weasel you are! I said nothing of the sort! THIS is what I said:

The Japanese struck at the USA when it would not cooperate with their attempt to make Japan the power of Far East Asia and the Pacific (including Australia and New Zealand). Are you suggesting that it was the United States' obligation to sell fuel to the Japanese? Should Roosevelt have endorsed the Japanese version of "manifest destiny?" Would that have fit Browne's definition of "minding our own business?"

I laid out the way Hirohito had drawn up the projected Japanese Empire as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" -- was or was not Roosevelt, under Barney Browne's principles, morally obligated to help Tokyo build their empire to avoid their being 'provoked by [their] anger' at the United States?
So often, I hear people say, "Well, the Japanese had to attack," as if the USA fired the first shot! What a pile of steaming, stinking nonsense! A tiny island nation above the equator that imports 4/5 of its fuel has business trying expand its influence as far as north of the Antarctic without the cooperation of the governments of its importers? The plan was doornail-dead as [soon as] it was proposed.
I note that you don't want near the hot potato of Pearl Harbor with the despicable conduct of Roosevelt,Marshall;in your reality,evidently,it is alright for your government to have your own servicemen as lambs to the slaughter to serve their 'higher purpose'.
In what passes for YOUR reality, you know what would have happened if things had gone differently. I don't make such claims. Do you read tea leaves, too? Do you know Cleo, the Jamaican psychic? You make just about as much sense!

367 posted on 9/13/01 6:24 PM Pacific by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]