tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post8252449368716990088..comments2023-08-18T10:14:37.977-05:00Comments on WhenEvilProspers: John Washburnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-9511600718835950642007-07-08T22:05:00.000-05:002007-07-08T22:05:00.000-05:00Those are good questions, John. Of course, we can'...Those are good questions, John. <BR/><BR/>Of course, we can't turn a blind eye to all the suffering in the world, <I>just as</I> we cannot willing take part in <B>causing</B> suffering of innocents in the world.<BR/><BR/>That's one of the problems with war-making as a solution: It's too costly and ineffective to allow us to work globally. We've been involved in a defeated little nation like Iraq for longer than it took to end WWII! And there was/is no contest in the size of "forces." But by wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and contributing to the loss of tens of thousands of lives - ours and theirs - we have no significant wherewithal remaining to deal with Darfur, Liberia or other serious trouble-spots in the world.<BR/><BR/>So, no, we don't turn a blind eye to deadly despots (of course, we should begin by <I>not supporting</I> despots in the first place!), but we work smarter, rather than deadlier.<BR/><BR/>I advocate international efforts to coordinate plans and strategies to deal with places that are out of control or where there is a corrupt regime. <BR/><BR/>I advocate joining, strengthening and supporting the International Criminal Court (and doing so by apologizing for the war crimes we were convicted of in Nicaragua and paying our fines there - lead by example).<BR/><BR/>But, I'm pretty sure I've pointed out what Just Peacemakers advocate before. There are many good ideas out there as to what we should be doing rather than invading countries such as Iraq unprovoked and with no significant plan on what to do other than, "I hope they'll welcome us as heroes..."<BR/><BR/>I openly advocate withdrawal from Iraq because history tells us that it is near impossible for an occupying force to "win" in a country where they are unwelcome. We need another plan...Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-20964409203854294582007-07-08T02:36:00.000-05:002007-07-08T02:36:00.000-05:00I find it interesting that you have such deep conc...I find it interesting that you have such deep concern for civillian loss of life, yet you openly advocate for full American withdrawal from Iraq. Have you actually given any thought to the aftermath? Do "The Killing Fields" ring a bell? Seems to me like you principles only apply when they fit your own agenda. Are civillian deaths only wrong when we're responsible? And would we not be responsible for all the deaths after a full retreat from Iraq?John Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-27965615782032805072007-07-06T15:38:00.000-05:002007-07-06T15:38:00.000-05:00My words have always and consistently said that I ...My words have always and consistently said that I love America and her ideals and when we don't live up to those ideals (and I'm sure you admit that happens) I push her to return to living up to those.<BR/><BR/>I am NOT anti-America, no matter how many times you may say the opposite. My words have been quite clear.<BR/><BR/>You're a reasonable fella, John, you wouldn't have me to be quiet when I think America is off on the wrong foot, would you? That wouldn't be right, would it?<BR/><BR/>The person who refuses to criticize his or her country when that country is wrong is no patriot.<BR/><BR/>Just because I think bombing children is horrible does not make me anti-America. Just because I think committing war crimes in Nicaragua is criminal, does not make me anti-America. What it means is that I have an opinion about right and wrong and I express it.<BR/><BR/>After all, you're critical of the majority of Congress, does that make you anti-America? You're critical of those Americans who would have us pollute less - does that make you anti-America? You probably thought Carter was a horrible president - does that make you anti-America?<BR/><BR/>That fine conservative Cal Thomas just wrote an article I actually agree with in which he tells "conservatives" to quit calling "liberals" unpatriotic, merely because they disagree with you. Amen.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-54599709913816074772007-07-05T15:29:00.000-05:002007-07-05T15:29:00.000-05:00With respect, I twisted nothing. Your history on ...With respect, I twisted nothing. Your history on this site has been pretty consistent as anti-American. You seem to take any opportunity to rib-kick this country and the "bad" things that we've done, without giving much consideration to the other possibilities. Or, in short, you seem to not give the US the benefit of the doubt, even when reason and common sense dictates otherwise.<BR/><BR/>All of that is fine. You have the right to say what you want, but I just don't appreciate it when someone speaks of America this way and then talks about how much they love her and think positively of her. Sorry, but I don't buy it, and it's quite insulting to think that we're all too dumb to recognize your opinions for what they are. <BR/><BR/>So, you don't have a positive image of America, and your words tell me as much. To be honest, until we are demilitarized and socialistic, you probably won't think positively of America.<BR/><BR/>If I misjudged you, then I apologize, but I'm just basing this opinion on your very own words.John Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-70421448298292930872007-07-05T06:50:00.000-05:002007-07-05T06:50:00.000-05:00No, I'm pointing out the reality that that's what ...No, I'm pointing out the reality that that's what many leaders - military, conservative and otherwise - of the time were saying.<BR/><BR/>And again, I'm opposed to targeting civilian men, women and children because I have a POSITIVE image of America and believe we are better than engaging in terrorism.<BR/><BR/>Please John, don't twist what I've said when I've pointed out clearly just the opposite.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-2077492669031481662007-07-04T11:39:00.000-05:002007-07-04T11:39:00.000-05:00You think Japan was desperate to surrender, so des...You think Japan was desperate to surrender, so desperate that it took more than one atomic device to convince them to surrender...and you think I have "blind belief"? Nice.<BR/><BR/>Some people with believe anything so long as it involves a negative image of AmericaJohn Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-50799832002895684952007-07-04T07:14:00.000-05:002007-07-04T07:14:00.000-05:00I love America. I love her ideals. And, like Gen E...I love America. I love her ideals. And, like Gen Eisenhower, Adm. Leahy, Gen MacArthur and other people quoted at that website, I don't think targeting large populations of civilians is within our ideals.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I think that sort of action is to vomit on the flag and piss on the constitution. It is a rejection of all America stands for.<BR/><BR/>Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who engages in it. Targeting civilians is wrong. Always.<BR/><BR/>Don't debate me if you don't wish to. I'm not even really trying to debate. I'm just pointing to the reality that a good number of the military and presidential advisors and conservatives of the day thought that bombing cities was wrong and not necessary.<BR/><BR/>Some people have so wanted to believe in the ideal of a perfect America that they create legends and myths to help support that blind belief despite what happened in the real world.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-71698791036855667082007-07-03T20:14:00.000-05:002007-07-03T20:14:00.000-05:00"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to s..."The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."<BR/><BR/>With all due respect to Admiral Leahy, but history has proven him wrong.<BR/><BR/>Some people are so blinded by their blatant dislike of America that reason just seems to escape them. Your way of thinking is so far in the outreaches of reality that I wonder how you function day to day. It's not even worth debating because debate requires at least some level of reason and understanding.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Japan was on the brink of surrender. Of course, I have no idea why it took not one, but two A-bombs to push them over that brink, but I'm sure the Admiral was right, clearly they were teetering on defeat. And Iwo Jima was definitely a good indication of their readiness to surrender where 21,000 of the 22,000 Japanese died defending 8 square miles of real estate over 37 days just 6 months before Hiroshima. After all, 216 of those soldiers DID surrender. Yes, that's solid evidence the Japanese Empire was ready to give up.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Marshall and MacArthur were wrong when they estimated one million allied casualties and 3 million Japanese casualties in a Japanese mainland invasion. Yeah, what do they know. Certainly no more than Admiral William Leahy.John Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-14994697666653352042007-07-03T07:12:00.000-05:002007-07-03T07:12:00.000-05:00"Do you have any idea how many lives Truman saved?..."Do you have any idea how many lives Truman saved?"<BR/><BR/>No. No one does, since we can't predict what hasn't happened. I DO know that many - including Truman's own <A HREF="http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm" REL="nofollow"> generals</A> - said that the bombing of the two cities was not a military necessity.<BR/><BR/>What I DO know is that the US targeted and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians - again, setting a shameful highwater mark for terrorizing civilians (and if that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is) that has gone unmatched in history.<BR/><BR/>======<BR/><I>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."<BR/><BR/>"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."</I><BR/><BR/>~Admiral William LeahyDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-60283442391790749992007-07-02T22:42:00.000-05:002007-07-02T22:42:00.000-05:00"And Truman's bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki (setti..."And Truman's bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki (setting the highmark for acts of terrorism) alone ranks him as one of the worst ever."<BR/><BR/>That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read, and I read Hillary Clinton's book! <BR/><BR/>Terrorism? That's insanity on a Gore level. I guess we should have voted to end funding on that war too. Or redeployed, or surrendered, or whatever it is you appeasers like to do.<BR/><BR/>Terrorism? Talk about a warped knowledge of history. Do you have any idea how many lives Truman saved? Or does it not matter to you?John Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-17154208889359272822007-07-02T22:02:00.000-05:002007-07-02T22:02:00.000-05:00Note that I didn't say the worst president, just o...Note that I didn't say the worst president, just one of the worst. I'd agree that LBJ was pretty bad. As was the first Johnson. And Truman's bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki (setting the highmark for acts of terrorism) alone ranks him as one of the worst ever.<BR/><BR/>And note: That's three horrible Democrats I've listed right along with Bush (although I'd suggest that Reagan was in the top five hall of shame) - so I at least can't be accused of partisanship.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-46408591673487755322007-07-02T21:28:00.000-05:002007-07-02T21:28:00.000-05:00Worst President? Don't know, but it's not Bush. ...Worst President? Don't know, but it's not Bush. I could make a good argument that Bush has suffered the most difficult presidency (next to Lincoln, of course). <BR/><BR/>Robert has a point. Andrew Johnson was horrible. A lot of racial tensions could have been avoided were it not for his reconstruction policies.<BR/><BR/>LBJ was pretty bad as well.<BR/><BR/>But it's hard for me to imagine anything worse than the disaster that we call the Carter administration. In our democracy, it's hard for one man to cause too much damage, but in 4 years he made an absolute mess of everything he touched, and still does. The guy must be jinxed or something. He is hands down the winner for worst ever. <BR/><BR/>As for Congress, this is much more than Iraq. I have a hard time believing that if Congress ended the war their popularity would surge. I don't think so.John Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-80675542056938508492007-07-02T10:10:00.000-05:002007-07-02T10:10:00.000-05:00Not the worst president. Bad? Maybe. I dunno. ...Not the worst president. Bad? Maybe. I dunno. The worst? Not a chance. <BR/><BR/>I'd go with Johnson (the first one, after Lincoln died.)<BR/><BR/>But let's face it Dan, both parties aren't look upon so highly right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-78014769511401698562007-07-02T08:37:00.000-05:002007-07-02T08:37:00.000-05:00It has been pointed out that while "The Congress" ...It has been pointed out that while "The Congress" polls poorly (rightfully so, seems to me), individual congresspeople do not poll nearly so poorly as the Prez, for the most part. And especially not in any one congressperson's district.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the people generally approve of <I>their</I> congressperson, it's all the rest they don't like.<BR/><BR/>So, in order to compare apples to apples, you really need to compare the elected official's polling position among his or her constituents. In that regards, Bush is doing terribly and I have no doubt that he will be remembered in history as one our worst ever presidents.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-19295996486910514102007-07-02T03:44:00.000-05:002007-07-02T03:44:00.000-05:00Die hard conservatives approved of the president. ...Die hard conservatives approved of the president. They also disapprove of the new congress. They voted in favor of war. Those in the middle and far left are disappointed in this congress's lack of political courage to unfund the war that the majority of America strongly opposes.<BR/><BR/>I believe that late August will be time for the new congress to show if it truly has the courage to defund a very unpopular war. If they have the courage to do so their approval rating might shoot through the roof, like when they were elected. It's what they were elected to do in the minds of most political junkies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-10808384308973907422007-07-01T14:05:00.000-05:002007-07-01T14:05:00.000-05:00I read that story too. God knows what's going to ...I read that story too. God knows what's going to happen in 2008 with either party not well liked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com