I won't attack liberal or conservative on this one, but I am very sure that we wouldn't have the stomach if we were to have to fight Hitler Today. We'd deal with him and allow him just Western Europe. We'd turn a blind eye about the Holocaust because it'd be a pro-zionist stance (Steve would approve of us not doing anything about it).

I think the whole bombing of Kosovo, the first preemptive war the United States fought spoiled us into thinking wars should end in 90 days and have no casualities.

The sad thing is and I really mean this about both sides of this debate with most people my age is, we will never be called the greatest generation. We may the ME generation look like selfless angels. It's just sad.

We're doing something noble in Iraq and the Middle East and all we can focus on is how we can get Bush to look bad instead of focusing on how to make over a billion people get the Freedom they deserve.

Mark

Bush's invasion of Iraq was done with the help of very few allies. The world did not support his misguided assumptions.

World War Two can in no way be compared to the shock & awe devastation he brought down on innocent Iraqi people.

One last time, you wing-nuts: the Iraq war is in no way comparable to WWII. Repeat 10,000 times until you get it through your thick skulls.

The Bushians try to justify a colossal mistake based on lies by constantly conjuring up this glorious WWII imagery. In this absurd alternate reality, Bush is Churchill, Saddam is Hitler, the miserable ragtag Iraqi army was the wehrmacht, Iraq was the Third Reich poised to take over the world, and anybody who questions the wisdom of invading Iraq is a Munich-style appeaser. It is all a self-serving idiot's distortion of history that dishonors and belittles our WWII veterans, and minimizes the sacrifices made by millions of people around the world in the struggle against fascism. How dare you.

Once again, "Bush's Folly" - as this idiocy in Iraq should forever after be named - is in no way, shape, or form comparable to WWII. We were never attacked by Iraq the way we were by Japan (and don't even try to mention 9/11 - Iraq had nothing to do with it). Pathetic regional weakling Iraq never threatened world domination as did Germany. A US military bogged down against an anti-occupation insurgency in a country that was never a threat to us is not the same as fighting in Okinawa in 1945. Hence, the press is not going to cover Iraq like it was WWII. Got it?

By the way, you dingbats, the press was far more "liberal" during WWII than the corporate/Bushian blather that passes for "News" today. Did you wingbats ever consider that the reason the news is so bad out of Iraq is because... the reality in Iraq is actually bad? This notion that coverage of Iraq should be equal proportions positive and negative is ridiculous - the real world is not equal parts good and bad, and there aren't two equally valid points of view on every matter. To present equal parts good news and bad news out of Iraq would be a sheer distrotion of the reality there. This is the way Fox News gets away being with being a distorted propaganda mill: by hiding behind this fundamentally errorneous idea of "fair and balanced" reporting on two always equally valid points of view. Some situations are almost entirely good, and some almost entirely bad - the job of journalists is NOT to always say a given situation is equally both.

There is an external reality out there - sorry if it seems to be biased against Republicans!

If anything, Americans have no idea how bad it really is in Iraq.

I'm missing the part where Germany, Italy, the northern Africa countries, etc, attacked the USA, Aarontime.

Oh, let's not forget the Balkans and Somalia.

Mark, really great post. In preparation for the landing on D-Day in France, the americans lost over 900 soldiers on a practice run in England. Can you imagine if that happened today, with the looney left wing Bush hating media. We lost 3,000 soldiers on the first day of D-Day. One division even landed on the wrong beach. We were completey taken by surprise on the first day of the Battle of the Bulge, by an enemy that was supposedly beaten. We lost thousands. The enemy had even infiltrated into our lines under our noses. The Allies allowed millions of Jews and others to be murdered in extermination camps, while we had received reports of the existence of these camps early on. Imagine how the unhinged left would have reacted if these had happened with a Republican in the White House.

Aaron,

My contention is that most of the news in Iraq is actually good, and it is only sensationalist MSM reporting which makes it seem bad. You, obviously, have a 180 degree different view of the matter - both of us, I imagine, can quickly round up a score or more news stories just from the past day to prove our respective points...but what you can't do, because it doesn't exist, is find front page and/or top-of-the-broadcast news stories detailing the very good things which are happening in Iraq - and the fact that you can't do that proves my point, and confirms Hanson in his.

Teach, we went into the European Theater, in WWII to prevent the Russians,they were Godless Communists, from taking over and controlling all of Europe after they beat Germany to a pulp. England was to weak to stand up to the Russians. Whatever our motivation was it was not an illegal,pre-emptive invasion of a country because they might at some point in the future get a nuclear bomb. Peace

wawilliyo,

You are right, today's generation would never have stopped Hitler. They would not have recognized the threat until Hitler's troops were marching into Washington. Just like with Iran, most people don't recognize the real magnitude of the threat we and the world faces if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Even most of those who do recognize it still don't have the will or stomach to stop it.

I have a great deal of respect and real admiration to those who fought in WWII. My father did. I do believe they deserve to be called America's greatest generation. The things they accomplished and the things they endured are truly amazing. I know they are in a league above me!

AAR

Aarontime,

The war with Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do, regardless of the reason chosen to justify it. President Bush, Tony Blair, and the coalition members did exactly the right thing, at exactly the right time. Had they waited even a month or two longer, the world could have been dealing with him and his murderous and barbaric sons for many years to come.

Bush's Folly... only in the mind of a liberal!

AAR

Mark if it wasn't for the MSM you hate so much playing dead prior to the war there is a good chance we wouldn't be involved in this endless quagmire to begin with.

They essentially rolled over and didn't challenge the administration on it's false pretenses to go to war. Actually I blame the MSM for a lot of our current problems. And I use to be one of them.

"I'm missing the part where Germany, Italy, the northern Africa countries, etc, attacked the USA, Aarontime."

As we are missing the part where Iraq attacked us.

"The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Iraq six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Iraqis, friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the invasion it meant to be freed from the tyranny of Saddam. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

You try to explain to these Iraqis that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of Iraqi conditions. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with Iran. They tell us that our mechanical pacification policy in Iraq is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask."

Actually, this was originally published in Life Magazine, January 7, 1946. I simply changed Europe to Iraq, and took out a few other passages, but added nothing to change the tenure of the article.

It seems that we may be a little too close to objectively judge the success or failure of Iraq and Afganistan. But my bet is that 30 to 40 years from now we will be able to look back and say that it was worth the price, just as we do now reflecting back on WWII.

I said it before and I'll say it again - if there's a pile of unreported good news in Iraq, why doesn't Fox New Channel run a show for it every night in prime time? That flag never stops waving in the corner, so why don't they help counter the MSM by directly promoting the virtues of the War on Terror?

Lord knows, if they spend hours of prime-time analyzing "tabloid" news like Natalie Holloway or the Duke rape case, then they have the time to help your fight against the MSM. Why don't you start a movement to petition Fox to create it? You could take that energy that you used trying to chastise the MSM for not celebrating the Victory in Iraq Day and put it toward something positive. What do you say, Matt and Mark? Charity starts at home.

extramedium

Fox could do perhaps a half-hour comedy of happy times in Iraq. Only problem would be finding material for following episodes.

extramedium,

RE: "Why don't you start a movement to petition Fox to create it?"

Well, you and I are thinking in the "right" direction. I would like to see much more real conservative news reporting and analysis on Fox News.

Conservatives need to learn some from the liberals too. It's not enough just to report the news. Someone must analyze the news and tell the viewers what it actually means and how to think.

What I would really like though, is for Conservatives to get together, pool their money, and buy one of the major networks like ABC, NBC, or CBS. That would give them access to the televisions of millions of Americans who don't have the opportunity to listen to the Fox News Cable Channel. Not all Americans have cable you know. An added positive effect would be that one of the liberal left's networks would be out of business -- two birds with the same buck (dollar)!

I would also like to see Rush Limbaugh, or at least some extracts of his show on Fox News. They probably couldn't afford him though. He said he won't run for president because it would be too much of a pay cut.

AAR

World War Two can in no way be compared to the shock & awe devastation he brought down on innocent Iraqi people.

The Mayo Clinic has an open bed, right next to Patrick Kennedy. He has a funny accent, just like you Canucks. CO, you can kick your habit; check in now and quit riding the horse with no name...

You're still fighting the last war, Mark. If the goal was to destroy Saddam's armies, we did that a long time ago. We already won that "war".

If anything, Americans have no idea how bad it really is in Iraq.

If anything, aarontime has overdosed on the dark blue kool-aid.

A friend just returned from Iraq, and while the country's not a utopia, the DBM and the left have it painted--falsely--as a giant mess. News flash, aarontime--the DBM rarely leave the Green Zone. They're living in a bubble over there, just as they have you in a bubble here.

Why do you call yourself aarontime? That is one stupid name. I guess it's what you tell the ladies, huh? Hey girls, it's aarontime! Big yuck...

As a percentage of tax reciepts, the budget deficit since 2001 has been:

2001 -9%
2002 -21%
2003 -29%
2004 -18%
2005 -12%

While as a percentage of tax reciepts, the budget deficit during WWII was:

1941 -57%
1942 -140%
1943 -227%
1944 -109%
1945 -105%
1946 -41%

So much for comparisons, we wasted a lot more as a percentage of tax revenues saving those ungrateful socialists in Europe.

Actually I blame the MSM for a lot of our current problems. And I use to be one of them.

Judging by your writing skills, it's not hard to understand why you're not one of them anymore.
Dumb-Ash, "use to be" should be "used to be."

You weren't part of any MSM, you liar. You aren't even old enough to graduate from a tricycle to a bike with training wheels.

As we are missing the part where Iraq attacked us.

Gotta depend on aarontime for your thoughts, Ash-licker?

Maybe that's what aarontime means. Hey Ash-wipe, it's aarontime. You two need to get a room...

Yes, Aarontime, please tell us how bad it is in Iraq and how you know it's that bad. I'd love to hear your source.

Keefer, tell me something: what's it lke to be a grown man trapped in a kid's body? I've read most of your comments and i'm suprised that Mark hasn't banned you for you making immature comments towards other bloggers.

Ash-wipe, Ash-hole, dumb-Ash?
Dude, how old are you? Seriously?
And you're considered an adult? You're a baby.

Do me a favor, and grow up!

Keefer, tell me something: what's it lke to be a grown man trapped in a kid's body? I've read most of your comments and i'm suprised that Mark hasn't banned you for you making immature comments towards other bloggers.

Ash-wipe, Ash-hole, dumb-Ash?
Dude, how old are you? Seriously?
And you're considered an adult? You're a baby.

Do me a favor, and grow up!

"endless quagmire"

Good Lord

Ash-wipe? Ash-hole?
Keefer, just how old are you?
You're an adult? You're a baby.
Grow up.

Teenage Liberal

Never has a moniker so accurately portrayed a standing.

Winston Churchill's famous quote should be read right about now

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain"

Don't worry Teenage Liberal...you will grow up too some day, develop that brain and look back at liberalism (I was liberal in college) and realize just how silly it all was.

Funny cause you're adult and you sure as hell haven't gotten any smarter.

Oh actually I have. I was an idealist like yourself when I was young. Made no money, had no problem suggesting the gov't use everyone else's money to try and solve all the problems in the world.

Then after making a few dollars and realizing that money doesn't solve society's problems and taxation actually hurts people, I began to change my tune.

Look, believe what you want....you're young and idealistic. I see nothing wrong with that. At some point you will realize that there are no utopias and are no panaceas. When reality hits, it hurts. I've been there.

Best of luck.

OK. Let's get something straight. Okinawa and Iwo Jima WERE bloody messes. As were Tarawa and Saipan. VERY few Marines who were in the Corps at the beginning of the war were still alive at the end. (one is a neighbor of mine – interesting character)

Read up on the Kamikaze attacks. There were wildly successful. Unfortunately for Japan - it was too late and we had a massive navy that could absorb blows that would have ended the war in 1942. Look at how the Marines had to come up with the tactic of using a flamethrower to suck all the oxygen out of a cave, and then sealing the entrance with a satchel charge. Talk about brutal.

Make no mistake - the fanaticism of the Japanese, and especially at Okinawa and Iwo were the major factors in Truman’s decision to drop atomic weapons.

Since the reporter quoted had no way of knowing about the Bombs - he was actually very correct. It WAS hard. That’s why we went nuclear.

Iraq is NOTHING like that. The terror attacks there are designed to reach weak willed Americans through a press that hates the president. Militarily, these attacks are a nuisance. Unfortunately, politically they work – because some people are predisposed to lose because their judgment is clouded with hate. The only valid argument I have heard about Iraq is that we didn’t use enough force. And THAT was (in my view) because the administration didn’t want to piss off the liberals any more than they already were. Poor choice. We should have CRUSHED them and gone house to house while they were still stunned.

If you can't believe the media here in america reporting on what is going on in iraq. How about what the Iraqi and our friends the saudi's news media is reporting.

From the Azzaman:
“There is no logic to getting rid of tyranny through cooperation with a foreigner who later turns into an invader.”

Or

"Government Loses control of Baquba as rebels intensify attacks"

or from our friends the Saudi's (who by the way just lowered their price for gasoline by 1/3)

"America is at war with the world and itself."

How about

US Marines "Neither liberators nor messengers of democracy"

It is not just the media here in the US - it is the entire world.

Maybe it is not too late to throw the bums out and save us from 'The New American Century'

-Joe

Joe -- What on earth makes you think the Saudi news media is "our friend"?

keefer

Looks like I mangled my point about comparing WWII and Bush's invasion of Iraq. I didn't mean say that the death & destruction inflicted on Iraq was in anyway worse than the immense casualties resulting from WWII.

My argument is that WWII & the American invasion of Iraq are as different as day & night and should be treated as such by the Media coverage.

keefer, you seem to have this fixation on mind-altering substances. What's up with that?

Churchill was speaking figuratively in that quote.

Any person that honestly believes that intelligence and political views are related need to have their head examined.

If you were a liberal in college, warriornation, then likely you were a hippy in the 60's, which was a fad that most people grew out of. hippy values do not reflect true politial values.

Trying to indicate that teenageliberal needss to grow up because of his or her views just goes to show your incredible level of ingorance. Perhaps you need to reconnect with your hippie values.

"Quote by warrior nation: Teenage Liberal

Never has a moniker so accurately portrayed a standing.

Winston Churchill's famous quote should be read right about now

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain"

Don't worry Teenage Liberal...you will grow up too some day, develop that brain and look back at liberalism (I was liberal in college) and realize just how silly it all was."

Churchill was speaking figuratively in that quote.

Any person that honestly believes that intelligence and political views are related need to have their head examined.

If you were a liberal in college, warriornation, then likely you were a hippy in the 60's, which was a fad that most people grew out of. hippy values do not reflect true politial values.

Trying to indicate that teenageliberal needss to grow up because of his or her views just goes to show your incredible level of ingorance. Perhaps you need to reconnect with your hippie values.

"Quote by warrior nation: Teenage Liberal

Never has a moniker so accurately portrayed a standing.

Winston Churchill's famous quote should be read right about now

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain"

Don't worry Teenage Liberal...you will grow up too some day, develop that brain and look back at liberalism (I was liberal in college) and realize just how silly it all was."

Axis, interesting. Yet - it seems the liberals are willing to grab defeat from the jaws of victory because they hate Republicans so much. And yes, the hatred comes through loud and clear in liberal posts.

Remind me again - just what does the Democratic party stand for?

Kahn,

That is what politics is all about isn't it. One party's losses are anothers gains. I think for the most part, they don't necessarily hate Republicans, but rather their conduct, which has been terrible since Bush took office.

During the Clinton years, Republican oversight committees would have in investigation if it was revealed that Clinton was seen picking his nose. Yet, since Bush, No oversight has happened at all. Their conduct is unconstitutional as congress has a duty to provide oversight. Sadly, this lot are Republicans first and Americans second.

Don't get me wrong, Democrats have a LOT of flaws and many democratic voters are not at all happy with this generation of Democrats. But with the 2 party system, you only have a right-left choice.

Many in the Demnocratic party don't hold the traditional Democratic values, just as in the Republic party, you have Neo-cons, the religious right now in power, you have corporatist Republicans and then you have moderate or traditional Republicans. You need not look any further than the immigration debate to see how fractured the Republican party is, with the Neocons wanting relaxed immigration and cheap immigrant labor to fill their factories and fields and the moderate republicans want tougher immigration laws.

Lots of problems on both sides of the fence, clearly the two party system no longer meets the needs of the voting public.

No axis, I was in college in the 1980's.

No axis, Churchill was not equating it to intelligence. He was equating it to emotion.

Liberals are seized in emotion, not reality. That is the difference.

Um I'm pretty sure due to the heavy losses in the pacific front was the main justification for using nuclear weapons? So essentially the losses WERE too much that it justified use of a more experimental and highly dangerous weapon. Essentially you are making our point, when it gets too stupid and hard, try something else. I don't know why you think this is an example of an out of control liberal media, they were right then and then are right now, a ground invasion from the Pacific would have been disasterous and might have even pinned down the US to the point of threatening the war. You are an idiot.

"At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population, and the civilian losses in the battle were at least 150,000. American losses were over 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing, over twice the number killed at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal combined. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly (from wounds and other causes), at a later date, are not included. About a third of the civilian population of the island in spring, 1945 were killed. There were about 100,000 Japanese soldiers killed and 7,000 captured."

Yea, Okinawa went swimmingly. Not at all the bloodbath the press had predicted. I guess 20,000 American lives doesn't mean anything to you Noonan. But it does to me. Not a one of those kids deserves to die for you and your irrationalized fear of Iraq. Shame on you.

Keefer - who is your point aimed at? I agree - it was awful. That's why we went Nuke. Agreed.

Do the numbers you just listed sound like Iraq? Be honest now.....

No, but Mark was making the point that the media was being negative about Okinawa, and the pacific front at large, and they were making it without justification. I'm just saying they were fully justified to describe it as a horrible course, one that could not guarentee victory and would cost possibly over a million lives. This was obviously the reality since we decided not to go ahead with the invasion. The media then were not shouting down the cause, they were telling the truth, as they are now. And for the record, dead and wounded in Iraq is now at 20,000. The size of the numbers isn't whats important, 5 soldiers dead is not okay. I only say this because you asked.

Also, Noonan's comment about the media today that would apparently obviously portray Kamikazes as heroes would I believe be justified. If you are simple, and see the whole world as black and white, then I guess these are lunatics? I don't know about you, but if I heard one of our pilots crashed into a Jap carrier and was instrumental in sinking it, I would feel a great duty to honor him, and admire how much he was willing to sacrifice for the good of the country, and me. I see the guy who jumps on the grenade for his squad as a hero, not a nutjob. But I don't know, self sacrifice is obviously something that doesn't have much value these days, what with all the chickenhawking.

keefer,

I don't really see what you are on about - that war is horrible? Was there some other point you wanted to make?

Heh just read the original post. I thought that italicized part was actual, not someone's representation of the current media's percieved attitude. Regardless, I don't think the media would have been wrong to report the pacific invasion as an haphazard strategy. Most of our progress made in the pacific was due to happenstance, not due to the strategy itself.

Mark,

What would you have the media do, simply not report the thousands dying every month? Would you like them to make it a side bar to a happy go lucky story instead? Would you have then not report that ministers are being gunned down or groups of thirty people are being found executed? Would you have then not report the kidnappings? The mosque bombings? The police station bombings? The sectarian executions? The police bus shootings? The revolts at police traing camps? Should they just not talk about these things? They go on every day. I don't care if you think things are going good, things aren't going good when over a thousand people die every month. That isn't peachy. It isn't mostly good news. Grow up.

Keefer,

I agree with PART of your posts. But MacArthurs island hopping strategy was actually pretty smart. We also devastated the Japanese economy with unrestricted submarine warfare (read Clear the Bridge! - one of the best books ever). We destoyed huge tracks of industrial areas with massive bombing attacks. And, we creamed their fleet and killed their pilots.

But - while this may have made some nations quit - we were up against an asian nation with a god for a leader. It was starting to look like it was going to be a bloody mess if Operation Olympic went forward (the attack upon the mainland).

No - I agree with you that Mark was off on his original post (sorry Mark), but I agree with Mark that the current press is deliberately mis-reporting and failing to report the actual situation in Iraq. And, since we clearly won in Afghanistan - they are not reporting on the situation there AT ALL.

I think that the orginal comparision was flawed.

Oh - my reason for believing this is that I have many current and former Marine friends as well as relatives in the Army, Air Force, and Navy. I also live in an area trhick with active dity and former members of all the services and know many people. The amount of traceable and provable e-mail and military blogs is overwhelming.

There is a firm belief held by many (though certainly not all) in the military that they finally understand what the Viet Nam vets meant when they said the press lost that war. They understand - because they are seeing it done in an even more deliberate manner now.

That is why I'm glad President Bush ignores the poles. The power of consistent propaganda is enormous and affects huge numbers of people (why else would people still smoke cigarettes?). This is in fact why we have a democratic republican form of government with elected officials and three branches of government.

That being said - I wish we had used more force and troops up front and that things would wrap up there soon. Ever been to that part of the world? It sucks.

Oh? And the Republicans aren't?

Wake up, things are the same on both sides of the fence, the only things that differ are the views.

Conservative views are no more based in reality than liberal ones.

You really did drink some of that kool-aid didn't you? It scrambled your brain but at least you lived.

----------------------

Quote by Warriornation:

"Liberals are seized in emotion, not reality. That is the difference."

axis,

That may be. But whenever we start pressing you guys on facts and peeling away the disinformation your views seem to be based on little.

Why did the Democrats kill Social Security reform? Is that problem fixed?

What would a Democratic congress (if elected) do come January of 2007?
1. How would it solve the energy problem? With no more drilling, no more refineries, and no more nukes - just what would their plan be? Price controls?
2. I remember after 9/11 when the Democrats used to refer to the "Bush economy" so - the tax cuts worked, the economy is good. What will the Dems do? Raise taxes, get rid of the cuts?
3. Is it seriously the Dem plan to search EVERY ship and container coming into our ports? But in the mean time, you'd leave the southern borders open? Or, well, what exactly is the dem position on the borders?
5. And - well what about Iraq? What would you do NOW? In January - would you cut funds? Force us out? Rescind the presidents war powers? Is that your plan?
6. What about the NSA? Shut down those evil programs? Defund them? Impeach Bush for ever having them?

Really - just what are you guys even talking about. All I ever hear is HATE. And guess what - that's an emotion.

reefer: Judging by your writing skills, it's not hard to understand why you're not one of them anymore.
Dumb-Ash, "use to be" should be "used to be."

keefer you know wat they say about assuming: it makes an ass out of you. I was a photojournalist, so I had to do little to no writing. I was a journalist however. The writers, the talent, had little minded people like you to check grammar. Some of them went on to be toll takers, like yourself.