One of the observable patterns of history is the way in which some women simply will not stop trying to interfere with men's decisions and actions, even when they clearly have no idea what is involved. And, just as clearly, they don't give even the smallest damn about the men concerned.
The combat experiences were different for airmen from the ground troops, but there was a similarity in reaction. After three months, most infantrymen suffered from some form of battle fatigue. For the airmen, that happened after twenty-five to thirty missions. Still their commanders kept them in trouble.
Flight Surgeon McKittrick treated men who had reached, and sometimes passed the breaking point.... McKittrick saw to it that crews got liquor rations after a mission during debriefing. "It was done very methodically," he said, "and it did a great deal to settle them down and it gave them a little more appetite. it helped to relax them slightly from the horrors of a particularly terrifying mission that, all too often, surpassed fiction. And I'll be damned if the Women's Christian Temperance Union didn't try their best to put a stop to that."
- Citizen Soldiers, Stephen Ambrose, p. 103
I suppose we should be grateful that they didn't try to prevent morphine from being given to the wounded. Assuming they didn't. I find this amazing, especially when one recalls that liquor rations have been a formally specified soldier's right since the days of the Roman legions.
68 comments:
**One of the observable patterns of history is the way in which some women simply will not stop trying to interfere with men's decisions and actions, even when they clearly have no idea what is involved. And, just as clearly, they don't give even the smallest damn about the men concerned.**
Yes. How terrible. I once woke up a man who was passed out, drunk, on the train tracks, at 4 am. Clearly, I have no idea that a drunk might not have intended to pass out on the train tracks, or what the effects of a train passing over a human body might be. And obviously, I clearly didn't give the smallest damn about him.
I clearly have so little concern about men, that I don't think that women should be in combat, because the very great majority of them are not physically capable of handling it, and more men will get killed than is already the case, due to having to pick up the women's slack.
Jeremiah says: Hey Ann, even I noticed that you immediately and solipsistically launched into a story about YOU when the context of the post is about WOMEN in general. Good job saving the drunk man BTW, not so much with the blatant sarcasm. Address the issue at hand please and stop trying to change the subject to women in combat.
Ann is once more demonstrating the concept of female solipsism for the reader's edification, just in case anyone was still unclear on it. She's a real teacher.
Tune into the Ann Morgan Show, folks! Playing everywhere 24/7, whether you like it or not!
I thought about being a teacher, then decided after substituting for a couple semesters that the system was utterly broken. I'd rather become a private tutor on some subject that I am an expert in in my waning years and perhaps teach 50 students something they can use for the rest of their lives than keep 10,000 students in a room for an hour once a day just to have them forget everything. I can't only remember the names of 1 or two of my grade school teachers and mostly because they were the ones I truly despised. Homeschool and appprenticeships FTW. As for the subject at hand though... Vox, I will have to tell you the story of the "Blue Eyed Iraqi" from Baghdad in 2004 sometime as an example of Women Ruining Everything
Vox - you can tell us. Is Ann for real, or is she someone you made up?
Ann also illustrated the female tendancy of framing an opposing viewpoint in the most ludicrous terms possible. There is no comparison between a drunk passed out in the train tracks, and an amputee getting drunk in his room. Any made husband knows how frustrating (albeit amusing) this tactic is.
If you can't counter their point, argue with nonsensical words they never said yet you put in their mouths.
Come to think of it, they do the reverse then trying to rationalize their own positions. They derive support for their prefered conclusions by listening to the words they put in the mouths of people hand picked because they will tell then what they want to hear.
"Why yes, your rich husband who bought you a Lakeside home and watches the kids while you go on week long trips to Hawaii with your girlfriends is mentally abusing you with neglect. Take him to the cleaners, that tatooed parolee really loves you."
Is Ann for real, or is she someone you made up?
I don't do sockpuppets. She's real. If I recall correctly, she followed some of the Baen's Bar people here. This isn't her first troll-rodeo.
Then Ann is a pathetic human being. And women wonder why nobody wants them.
God, Ann, you're a dumb cunt.
Women's Christian Temperance Union
Shoot them all in the face, meddling bitches.
You can take my liquor from my cold dead hands.
If I never understood what solipsism was, I understand now.
Talk about a reading comprehension fail. Key phrase for the reading impaired, or slightly retarted: "is the way in which some women". How can that not be more clear? Had Vox written "is the way in which Ann" or even "is the way in which all women", then maybe Ann's comment is relevant.
Unbelievable. Pure, unadulterated, naked stupidity.
I bet Ann is a lot of fun at parties.
Talk about a reading comprehension fail. Key phrase for the reading impaired, or slightly retarted: "is the way in which some women". How can that not be more clear? Had Vox written "is the way in which Ann" or even "is the way in which all women", then maybe Ann's comment is relevant.
No method or technology presently exists that ensures the security of the meaning of a transmitted message to a female. This goes quadruple for something she will find disagreeable. Many-a-man have been frustrated by this reality.
There is a reason why women were never allowed to vote until 1920....
Orderly Worship
…1 Corinthians 14: 33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.…
Finally...
1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Real truth is eternal and inescapable. Going against it will always lead to chaos and ruin.
Prostitutes have also been a part of armies for many years, should we favor or encourage those too?
Clearly some things will happen, but should the US government have been paying for "comfort women" in Vietnam? (We shouldn't have been there at all, but that is another issue.)
Arguing that opposing things that have "always been" is merely the female imperative misses some of the point. Would the doctor in question have been just as acceptable if he had encouraged a romp with a female prior to such a debriefing? That might have put many of them much more at ease after all.
Brad, please re-read all of the two paragraphs in the original quote. The mechanism of comfort is not relevant, nor your interpretation of women's issues oddly assessed retroactively.
The issue at hand are people (in this case overzealous women) who insert themselves into situations that have nothing to do with them at all. Not even in the slightest. An issue that made some women flutter with civic drive in Sandusky, OH has less than nothing to do with troops in a foreign land coping with the horrors of wars away from most of civilization.
Either Brad is a woman, Anne Morgan, or cannot or chooses not to comprehend d what he reads.
"An issue that made some women flutter with civic drive in Sandusky, OH has less than nothing to do with troops in a foreign land"
But, don't you see. Like Ann Morgan, in every corner of life - from war torn areas to storm drains to SF/F cons to locker rooms - they can't help but want more of these buttons to be pushed if it help serves the female imperative. For the building of a better world, and for the childrens.
Like has been noted, they can only maintain their false air of superiority by framing others in the most ludicrous light possible.
Say women should not stop amputees from drinking, and a woman talks abouts whether or not she leave a man passed out on the tracks.
Say wives should not sexually neglect their husbands, and they'll talk about whether a man should be able to rape his wife 5 minutes after giving birth.
Solipsism means burning down all of society just to protect yourself from some outrageous event less likely than a lottery win. It would very much be like a man wanting to legalize rape just because.their is a remote chance he may be accused of it.
The parallels between the way both females and government are obsessed with controlling men are identical.
Women are natural dictators. Why wouldn't they be? it's a character trait that really comes in handy when managing households full of small children, after all. The totalitarian nature of women, when properly channeled, is essential to the survival of the human species.
But outside of its proper sphere... well, look at what's happening with the feminized US military and with the anti-male hostility on American college campuses and in the courts. Or, just wait three years and watch what happens to the whole US under Hillary's rule.
It seems that whenever women don't have a household of small children to boss around, they will express their bossiness and maternal instincts elsewhere -- and when enough of them get together as a voting bloc, they vote to turn the state into the ultimate schoolmarm, setting limits on what everyone is allowed to do, say, read, write,watch, eat, drink, believe, etc. etc. etc., just as a mother would set rules for her children.
It's not called 'the nanny state' for nothing, after all.
Both Brad and Ann have obviously never been in a warzone, and had aspects of their downtime dictated to them for reasons that have NOTHING to do with safety, health, welfare, or mission goals, but instead, to placate the consciouses of people who literally don't give a rat's fig about the personnel in the warzone in the first place. Case in point: tyring to prohibit the PX system from selling magazines with pictures of women in them (and no, this wasn't about porn, because this included a lot more than porn mags, and it likewise had nothing to do with concern for Muslim sensibilities -- they didn't want magazines like FHM being sold in stateside PXes either.) And yes, these crusades are usually lead by women's organizations attempting to hide their malice by putting the word "Christian" in their name.
Jack, that picture is hilarious, but you forgot to close the quotation.
Like this.
Anyway, it's funny how long a pedigree the sex withholding gambit has. It's like the negative application of the "Magical vagina tool".
Also, re: Jack Amok, the really funny thing about that picture is that it's bound to make any red-blooded man reach for the bottle.
Allowing women in the military negated the requirement for "comfort women".
Here's another point. I agree with Vox that women probably shouldn't tell soldiers in wars how to behave, on the grounds that very few women have been in wars, so most of them don't have any understanding of the subject at hand. But is the opposite true? No men have ever been pregnant, menstruated, or had a vagina. So if a woman has no grounds to dictate something she has no experience of, precisely on what grounds do men feel free to create laws regarding pregnancy, the termination thereof, menstruation, or what a woman does with her sex organs?
Alkulkis wrote: **Both Brad and Ann have obviously never been in a warzone, and had aspects of their downtime dictated to them for reasons that have NOTHING to do with safety, health, welfare, or mission goals, but instead, to placate the consciouses of people who literally don't give a rat's fig about the personnel in the warzone in the first place. Case in point: tyring to prohibit the PX system from selling magazines with pictures of women in them (and no, this wasn't about porn, because this included a lot more than porn mags, and it likewise had nothing to do with concern for Muslim sensibilities -- they didn't want magazines like FHM being sold in stateside PXes either.) And yes, these crusades are usually lead by women's organizations attempting to hide their malice by putting the word "Christian" in their name.**
Clearly, you are an idiot and a liar, who, like Vox, likes to claim I have opinions that I don't, since I have no objection to soldiers drinking or buying pornography, and in fact think that they should have access to prostitutes. It really isn't my place to dictate how someone chooses to endure a universe which is pretty much unendurable anyways, and the soldiers are going to have sex regardless of whether I might approve of it or not. That being the case, it's vastly preferable that they have it provided by women who at least volunteer for it, and who are from our country, rather than their engaging in rape, or with women who are likely to be enemy spies. My main concern regarding such a situation is that the soldiers pay the prostitutes themselves, rather than it being an additional expense on taxpayers.
But! But! But! The Demon Rum which magically turns men into poor, shiftless, unemployed wife-beaters!
The verse in Proverbs which says that "wine makes glad the heart of man" must be a mistranslation!!111!
Ann,
You ask a reasonable question.
In regard to pregnancy, you are correct that men do not get pregnant. However, we are all former fetuses. I oppose abortion due to my value of innocent human life, and not to regulate a womans.
I don't know of anyone here who advocates laws governing menstruation or the vagina.
You know what law meddles with women, their doctors, and their gynecologists? ObamaCare. And you'll be hard pressed to find a supporter of that here.
** I oppose abortion due to my value of innocent human life, and not to regulate a womans.**
Trust, a few problems with what you said:
1. You are going to have to define exactly WHY human life has value, in a way that somehow includes the embryo, but doesn't include animals we eat for meat. Your wanting it to be that way, or claiming that God wants it that way (which absent actual proof of God and his opinions simply amounts to your wanting it that way) doesn't really work for me.
2. You need to explain how you can preserve the life of the embryo, against a woman's will, WITHOUT regulating her. And by Vox's standard of not having the right to regulate something you have no experience of, this is a fail.
3. Not to get solipsist, but I'm capable of raising my body temperature by 4 degrees by concentrating hard enough. I used to give myself fevers on purpose this way in 8th grade to get out of the class of a teacher I despised. Hypothetically, if I were pregnant, it's likely an embryo would be severely damaged or killed by this. Can you explain how any amount of regulations will prevent me from doing such a thing? Should I, or any woman, be put on trial if I get a fever inadvertantly during pregnancy?
Oh, and I'm not in favor of Obamacare either.
Whoa. Gotta say I didn't see that logic coming.
To put one in a position that they have to explain why they aren't vegetarians if they oppose abortion is nonsensical. That knife cuts both ways. If animal and human life has no difference, then why can't we eat a child post born, and no one who eats meat can support laws against murder.
That is, of course, insane.
Wow. At least we know you definitely aren't a man masquerading as a woman.
"Not to get solipsist"
...ic.
We may push you up to 167 yet.
" I'm capable of raising my body temperature by 4 degrees by concentrating hard enough. "
Any wonder the papasan and keyboard don't burst into flames everytime you driveby.
In any case, I'm sure it's not exactly illegal to tumble down the stairs either. I'm guessing the regulars would rather you consider this option.
...And honestly, the only prescription - is more cowbell.
Trust wrote: **To put one in a position that they have to explain why they aren't vegetarians if they oppose abortion is nonsensical. That knife cuts both ways. If animal and human life has no difference, then why can't we eat a child post born, and no one who eats meat can support laws against murder.**
No, it isn't nonsensical. The problem here is, the reason we give rights to humans and not to animals, is that human beings have a functioning, intelligent brain. That factor doesn't apply to embryoes any more than it does to brain dead motorcycle accident victims. The fact that 'we all used to be embryoes' is also irrelevent. The human body is 90% water. Some of that water probably was peed by a dinosaur. But we don't give rights to reptiles or urine based on the fact that we 'used to be' either one. Nor do we give rights to sperm.
Also, a 'need' does not create a right. The fact that the embryo might 'need' the body of the mother does not create a 'right' to remain in that body, any more than the 'need' of a drunken homeless person to get out of subzero temperatures and have a kidney transplant gives them a 'right' to move into your house or have your kidney removed against your will.
kh wrote: **In any case, I'm sure it's not exactly illegal to tumble down the stairs either. I'm guessing the regulars would rather you consider this option. **
Yes, well it's always been fairly obvious to anyone but handwavers that the supposed 'right to life' is simply a 'punishment for having sex voluntarily' given that it generally isn't applied to 'innocent babies' whose mothers were raped, and that the advocates of it have for the most part not sold off all their worldly goods to save third world children from starving to death.
For the millionth time, why is anyone responding to her/him/it? Clearly Morgan is either :
a) a troll (and a good one at that)
b) mentally disturbed or
c) lonely, but moderately intelligent and craves the attention of people smarter than Jizzybell can offer. Perhaps she gets off on the contrarian aspect as well.
I lean heavily to (c) because everyone of her posts deliberately uses logical errors and fantastical leaps that dozens of commenters mention each time between her posts. No one is this dense unless they are (b), however she seems to actually hear other people's comments to at least bounce her own thought off of so craziness probably doesn't work.
For instance, (you can pick any of her posts really) at 9:21 she is already on a tangent about right to lifers being against abortion as a punishment to people who like sex, something which in itself has no bearing on the ACTUAL topic of the article, when she immediately vomits up " and that the advocates of it have for the most part not sold off all their worldly goods to save third world children from starving to death. "
This is something only a crazy cat woman would say as they live in their own world or someone who loves trolling for people who will constantly respond to easy prey, thus giving her the attention fix she clearly yearns for. This is literally EVERY TIME. It's not that she can't help it, or she's simply a dumb woman. This is intentional and you guys are feeding it.
About a year ago, I had a discussion with her and another poster on some topic and even though she seemed genuine, every single reply from her had to revolve around some personal story, complete with full details and how because of this, the world surely was xyz... After about 6 posts I realized my futility and assumed she was a little off like my mother and not reachable, though in general harmless. Wrong. She is a deliberate winder upper and knows she will get her cat nip here. Simply don't respond. Just skip over her posts and let her eventually move on. And for those who think I am just ganging up on dissenters, not at all. Try speaking with her on anything. Ask her about the weather and all you will get is how because her neighbor uses a grill in the summer to feast on animal flesh, the temperature in her state has gone up 15 degrees in a year, so SLAVERY happened and dam people like you for her vagina hurting!! Rinse and repeat.
Vincent, you are full of it. I am merely noting that just saying "something works" does not mean that those opposing it are being solpsistic (sp?).
Other things would ease men as well. Demonstrate why those are also fine or my point that opposing some things (like alcohol) is not necessarily fitting the point made in the OP. I would not support their push for an alcohol ban, but I can see it coming from honest convictions and not just a desire to control others. If you assert otherwise then opposing anything the military might do to "ease the situation" is equally wrong.
The question comes down to whether an individual or group can ever oppose anything without being a control freak.
Stuff your accusations and respond with facts please.
Brad wrote: **The question comes down to whether an individual or group can ever oppose anything without being a control freak.**
It depends on what they are opposing. If they are opposing something with an actual, human victim (embryos, Gods, and 'society' do not qualify), then they are not being a control freak. Opposing something for 'someone's own good' or for 'God', 'embryos', 'the environment', 'society', 'your own good' can't be done without being a control freak and violating the rights of other people.
Ergo, not the business of the Christian Women's Temperance Movement if soldiers, or anyone else gets drunk. Mind you, that doesn't mean you get to use being drunk as an excuse for your actions while drunk, to have others pay for your alcohol, and (unless you were born with fetal alcohol syndrome) claiming that you were 'robbed' by alcohol is a lie.
"This is intentional and you guys are feeding it. "
Object lesson. Or Vox would have deleted her comments otherwise as per VP.
You're reading into it a bit too much, me thinks.
And never underestimate when Troll Bingo is off the table due to blown cover.
...For example, as you noted:
"Ask her about the weather and all you will get is how because her neighbor uses a grill in the summer to feast on animal flesh, the temperature in her state has gone up 15 degrees in a year, so SLAVERY happened and dam people like you for her vagina hurting"
.....
It's like Raising Arizona never ended.
Clearly, you are an idiot and a liar, who, like Vox, likes to claim I have opinions that I don't,
Oh, really.
Protip for you: Don't post while drinking.
OK, Ann, and Brad, I'll put it in terms you can understand:
Civilians on the homefront, who aren't being harmed by anything that's happening in a warzone, should not... EVER... push and agitatate over ANY damned issue for which the only effect will be to make the life of the frontline soldier even more miserable than it already is.
Comprende?
For the millionth time, why is anyone responding to her/him/it? Clearly Morgan is either :
a) a troll (and a good one at that)
b) mentally disturbed or
c) lonely, but moderately intelligent and craves the attention of people smarter than Jizzybell can offer. Perhaps she gets off on the contrarian aspect as well.
I vote for Borderline Personality Disorder. They love to commit aggressive acts, and then try to cast themselves as the victim in everything. THE VICTIM IN EVERYTHING. They are narcissistic to the extreme (every BPD exhibits full-blown Narcississtic Personality Disorder). BPD is caused by either severe neglect or abuse going back to infancy OR by sexual assault. Ann's writings indicate that she was subjected to both, and EVERY posting by her is always a reference to... Ann, Ann, and more Ann, and if you didn't get enough...even MORE ANN!
Listen, Ann, here's the deal ... just because you were abused by some people growing up doesn't give you the right to abuse everyone else. I was abused as a kid, but I don't make a habit of making the rest of the world pay for it.
Alkulkis wrote: **OK, Ann, and Brad, I'll put it in terms you can understand... (snipped)
OK, Alkulkis, I'll put it in terms that YOU can understand.
I have no objections to soldiers drinking.
I have no objections to soldiers seeing prostitutes, provided they are in that business voluntarily.
I have never stated that I did have any objections to it, and I'm getting extremely annoyed at your repeatedly claiming that I have opinions that I don't. About the only concerns I have (other than the prostitutes being in that business voluntarily) is that the soldiers pay for their alcohol and prostitutes themselves and that neither be regarded as a legitimate excuse for harmful action (ei, drunk driving) or failing to do their jobs.
**Listen, Ann, here's the deal ... just because you were abused by some people growing up doesn't give you the right to abuse everyone else.**
Listen, Alkulkis, here's the deal. If you think that an internet post you don't like constitutes 'abuse', I very highly doubt you were 'abused' as a kid. Spoiled, more likely.
And another thing, Alkulkis. I don't think the 'Christian's Women's Temperance Group' or whatever the hell they call themselves, or any other group, should be agitating to control what soldiers do or don't do. They should mind their own damn business. But that same principal applies to everyone else, not just soldiers, as well.
For the millionth time, why is anyone responding to her/him/it? Clearly Morgan is either :
a) a troll (and a good one at that)
b) mentally disturbed or
c) lonely, but moderately intelligent and craves the attention of people smarter than Jizzybell can offer. Perhaps she gets off on the contrarian aspect as well.
Clearly it's (d) all of the above.
As for why anyone would indulge this chick... Morbid curiosity, entertainment and education. The game newcomer will get more out of this thread than he would be likely get out of two or three fully fleshed out articles on the relevant subjects. While Ann may be an extreme case in these departments, she's demonstrating a few of the core behavioral theories perfectly.
More importantly, this whole exercise demonstrates a principle I see men struggle with frequently: female irrationality. When a woman doubles down on a nonsensical position, the go-to response of most men is to point out the logical errors and fantastical thinking inherent of her position. If they don't verbally point it out, they think on it and allow the nonsense to twist their brains in a knot ("does she realize how daft/stupid/insane/nonsensical that is?!"). See above for examples.
In my experience, and I'm sure Vox or someone will correct me where I'm wrong, there are only two solutions for this: (1) dismiss the person in question entirely, forcing them to be rational, or (2) respond with something even more unbelievable. But never, ever, attempt to apply reason to the unreasonable. You'll only spin your wheels (which is fine, I suppose, if you enjoy doing burnouts).
She's a real teacher.
I assume you mean to say that she's an employee of a government youth indoctrination center. In that case she is not a teacher. Teaching and indoctrination are two complete different and mutually exclusive things.
Hey look Ann asked you to justify taking the life of an embryo.
So embryos are alive. And women are mass murderers.
Aku, I am not even paying attention to Ann's arguments, so please don't lump me with her.
And yes, I will oppose many things done by armies in war, especially when those armies come from my country. I opposed our efforts in Iraq and oppose the ongoing work in Afghanistan. War is not the ultimate justification for anything those in power want.
I may tolerate some things I would not otherwise in war, but the story in the OP illustrates the root cause: Pushing people into war irrationally. The use of alcohol was only a result of the former. The U.S. should not have been in WWI or WWII for example, but that is a whole other can of worms and I will let Vox bring that up on the other blog if he really wants that discussed.
Feel free to disagree or pillory me if that makes you excited.
Nope... Ann's a scroll-by now and forever. She's just annoying and tiresome.
1. Brad -- are you saying that ur military actions to fight against the Nazis was wrong?
2. Whether a war is just or not, or whether a servciceman agrees with its goals or not is utterly irrelevant. Flying over enemy territory, with your bomber being wracked by anti-aircraft fire, and fighter attacks is harrowing enough. Seeing your friends get shot down in the plane next to you -- possibly even seeing some of their faces through the windows as the plane first drops out of formation is horrific. Counting the parachutes before the plane hits the earth, and only seeing three for a crew of eleven is soul-crushing.
The Old Testament is quite clear about alcohol being a gift from God to ease the pain of those experiencing sorrow. For a bunch of women, calling themselves the the "Wome's CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE Union" to advocate policies which directly contradict the Bible is heretical.
A bunch of women in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois have no business telling young men, that they can't drink after living through such horrors is just plain cruel, especially when such men had to either complete 25 missions or get wounded badly enough to be evacuated to get out of theater... and at that time, VERY FEW bomber crewmen survived 25 missions [and if a bombing raid made it to the target, only to find it covered by clouds, and the same thing for the alternate target in some other nearby city, and therefore no way to deliver their bombs, then the bomber crews got no credit for flying the mission].
That was the what the BIG DEAL about the Memphis Belle was about ... after over a year of bombing operations, FINALLY one of the bomber crews managed to come home after delivering their payload 25 times, and had managed to earn their eligibility to rotate home out of theater. Think about how many B-17's and B-24's had flown sorties before that time, and realize that over 90% of those which had flown over France or Germany to that date had been shot down over enemy-held territory.
s/ur/our
Also... you think we shouldn't have been in WW2 after the Japanese attempted to sink the entire Pacific Fleet AND DECLARED WAR ON US, and German U-boats were sinking American cargo vessels sailing in the Atlantic AND GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON US?
Like it or not, we were in World War 2 -- not by choice --- we dragged into it, by our opponents. Even the most fervent isolationists were for prosecuting the war as violently as possible, because, despite their best efforts to stay out of the war, WE WERE STILL DRAGGED INTO IT.
Wow... You still believe your grade school US History?
The United States were dragged into NOTHING.. The warmonger FDR baited the Japs into attacking us and they obliged. The warmongers knew the attack on Pearl was coming. And did NOTHING to preserve American lives.
3000+ men at Pearl Harbor, used as kindling by the Communist bastard FDR and his war-profiteering sycophants to light the bonfire that got 407,000 killed.
I suppose you think 9-11 was pulled off by 19 Raghead too...
Yes, yes, they baited the Japanese Navy into attacking us, so that the Japanese Army could continue their invasion in China.....
You realize, don't you, that if the Japanese had just gone for the oil fields in the Dutch and British colonies, and NOT attacked US, we probably wouldn't have done anything substantial to Japan. If you don't realize this, then you really don't understand how strong the Isolationist sentiment in Congress was on Dec 6, 1941. Americans were not about to go to war so as to keep a couple of colonies under the control of some European powers literally half-way around the world.
Case in point: The Japanese overran French Indochina (Vietnam) in 1940 with 140,000 troops. We didn't lift a finger.
Osama Bin Laden said that 9-11 was pulled off by "ragheads". Knowing that it would focus our country's foreign policy on killing him, why would he go on record claiming credit?
Also, the site where the "ragheads" trained for the op was within my company's patrol areas when I was stationed in Baghdad. Specifically, a site in Salman-Pak. A lot of people will tell you that it wasn't used for such a purpose, but Charles Duelfer witnessed "counter-terrorism" training at the site, and reported that what was ACTUALLY going on there was Terrorism Training.
Having played OPFOR (opposing force) on numerous occassions for my infantry battalion when it was conducting counter-terrorism training, I can assure you that I have been trained in how to operate as a terrorist, if I were to chose to do so. If I wasn't, then i wouldn't have been doing my job as OPFOR.
. If you don't realize this, then you really don't understand how strong the Isolationist sentiment in Congress was on Dec 6, 1941.
Except that's exactly my damned point. The warmongers needed something to spark War Fever in the U.S. Anti-war sentiment is exactly WHY they baited the Japs and let our men die.
As for the 9-11 thing, allow me a quick rephrase and insert the word: "JUST" in there.
There is no way it was ONLY the hijackers that were involved. High level folks in the federal government were fully complicit.
But we're getting off topic.
**So embryos are alive.**
Irrelevent. So are bacteria, cattle, and brain dead motorcycle accident victims. And don't babble to me about 'potential' human life unless you are willing to prove the point by spending a Wisconsin winter sheltered by a blueprint and paying the price of a bushel of tomatoes for a packet of tomato seeds.
*And women are mass murderers.*
Question here. Are you willing to enter a funeral home, go up to a woman attending the funeral for her 5 year old, who has died of cancer, and tell her that a woman who had a miscarriage at 3 months has suffered an equal tragedy? Are you willing to go up to an 6 year old whose father was a rapist, and tell them that their life is less valuable than that of everyone else in their class? Are you willing to kill a single 1 year old, in order to save the life of 100 fertilized week-old embryoes in petri dishes?
If you answered 'yes' to any of the above, there is something very wrong with you, morally. If you answered 'no', then you know that embryoes are not actually people, and it isn't about saving 'innocent human lives', it's about punishment for sex. You know it. I know it. If you want to argue that people should be punished for sex, then for best results, I'd suggest you argue that point honestly and stop playing games. Mind you, you aren't very likely to convince me of that point, but you definitely won't convince me by lying.
Alkulkis wrote: **The Old Testament is quite clear about alcohol being a gift from God to ease the pain of those experiencing sorrow. For a bunch of women, calling themselves the the "Wome's CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE Union" to advocate policies which directly contradict the Bible is heretical.**
Question here: Is it your position that the Old Testament is valid, and not to be handwaved away or cherrypicked as many other people on this forum do whenever it is convenient?
My contention is that the Women's CHRISTIAN Temperance Union is rather hypocritical if they were both calling themselves CHRISTIAN and utterly contradicting the Bible. The Bible makes it clear in the old Testament that it is ok to provide alcohol to someone who is feeling sorrow, and in the New Testament, Jesus himself provides wine to his followers.
No baiting was needed. The Japanese had been wanting to go to war with us for years. Their big mistake was in not doing any actual planning and assessment until months before starting the thing...and then when they used up their plans, they came up with the half-assed Midway operation, got their clocks cleaned, and from that point on, were on their way to defeat.
Meanwhile, all MacArthur did was implement the plan (the Island Hopping campaign) which had been drawn up in the early 1930's by his predecessors. The Japanese government was run by a bunch of hot-heads, and payed dearly for their rash impetuousness. There was absolutely ZERO reason to attack the US when all they wanted was the Dutch oil fields.
Alkulkis wrote: **My contention is that the Women's CHRISTIAN Temperance Union is rather hypocritical if they were both calling themselves CHRISTIAN and utterly contradicting the Bible. The Bible makes it clear in the old Testament that it is ok to provide alcohol to someone who is feeling sorrow, and in the New Testament, Jesus himself provides wine to his followers.**
Well, that might very well be. Problem here is, unless you are following the bible 100% (and extremely few people are), someone such as the pinheads in the Temperance Union will use that fact against you. This makes the bible not really the best defense for letting soldiers drink. The libertarian position is better, namely that soldiers have the same right to drink as everyone else does. Of course, if you like to tell other people what to do regarding their sex lives, then you can't really take the libertarian position, either.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.