Advertisement

Posts tagged with Wwii

Reporters as Prostitutes II

The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is "ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie." They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn't that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren't the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation's global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron's role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn't have any health problems. We didn't learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison's disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don't care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential "job applicants" to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama's body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan's syndrome often have. Those with Marfan's syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn't have Marfan's syndrome if he won't make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn't important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his "race" as "African" even though the term "African" cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word "African" instead of the term used at the time "Negro[the Spanish word for black]" could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama's complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn't want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama's decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator's trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn't new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. " That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Reply 16 comments from Agnostick Jonas_opines Alyosha Patricia Davis Donttreadonme Somedude20 Roedapple Deec Media_hookers_for_obama Beatrice and 1 others

Obama’s Inane Debate Comment

President Barack Obama made the most inane debate comment of the early 21st century in the October 22nd debate. http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate

"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military's[sic] changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

We may not need as many horses and bayonets as we did in 1916, but we need more ships than the peace time navy of 1916 did. In 1916 the United States didn't think it needed a big navy because it wasn't involved in World War 1 and still expected the British Navy to control the seas. The United States Navy has inherited the commerce protecting and peace keeping role the British Navy played a century ago. However, the U.S. cannot perform that role with only 114 ships of 287 total ships deployed over 139 million square miles of ocean. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146

The United States should have an aircraft carrier based group with rescue helicopters and Marines off the coast of Libya and other hot spots where embassies are close enough to the sea for sea based rescues. The capital of Iran was too far from the sea for a sea based rescue during the Carter administration. Diplomatic facilities in Libya and some other trouble spots can be reached from ships.

It may come as a surprise to Obama, but the main reason we ended up in WWI was because the United States didn't have enough ships to protect its merchant ships from German submarines called U-boats. Nuclear power for submarines may have come long after WWI but "ships that go underwater" were a major German weapon in that war. The first submarine was built in the 17th Century and the first submarine attack was an unsuccessful attempt to attach a bomb to a British ship during the American Revolution. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/worlds-first-submarine-attack

It is unlikely that Japan would have attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 if the United States had had more than one fleet in the Pacific. Japan thought that knocking out the only American fleet in the Pacific would allow it to take control of the Pacific before the United States could build a replacement fleet.

This year begins the 200th anniversary of the first major war fought by the United States, the War of 1812. The United States wouldn't have felt a need to enter that war if it had had a big enough navy to discourage the British navy from kidnapping sailors from American merchant ships and even naval ships.

Peace provides the best environment for the international trade the U.S. economy has always depended upon. The United States first foreign "war" was an attack on pirates on the North African coast. The U.S. needs a big enough navy to permanently station ships in shipping lanes plagued by pirates.

The Navy provides the best option for protecting the peace. Moving ships to a trouble spot doesn't require construction of large bases first. Personnel can be stationed near a trouble spot without the complications involved with stationing troops among the local population. We may not need as many horses and bayonets as were needed in 1916, but ships are even more necessary.

Four years ago Democrats criticized Gov. Sarah Palin for her statement "I can see Russia from my house". Compare that to Obama's statements: "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." Obama apparently thinks he's speaking to children, or maybe he just has a simple mind.

Obama's statements that al Qaeda is weak ignores the implications of the attack on the Libyan consulate. Al Qaeda may be weaker in Afghanistan, but it is growing elsewhere. It is not going away any time soon. Obama is underestimating the strength of al Qaeda much like the Johnson administration underestimated the strength of the Viet Cong before the 1968 Tet offensive.

Reply 29 comments from Bugrpiknrtwnger Fretster Mike Ford Beatrice Overplayedhistory Somedude20 Fiddleback Deec Armstrong Roland Gunslinger and 9 others

Will Obama Abandon Eastern Europe?

President Barack Obama's recent statement to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, for incoming President Vladimir Putin, that he would be more willing to give into Russian demands after the election indicates re-election of Obama could be a disaster for the United States. Obama's statement is particularly disturbing because it comes on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred because Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev thought President John Kennedy's mishandling of the Bay of Pigs and weak response to the Berlin Crisis of 1961 indicated Kennedy was indecisive and weak. Khrushchev thought the Soviet Union could take advantage of that perceived weakness to place nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis reminds me that I got a haircut on Friday, October 26, 1962. As I rode my bicycle home from Buff's Barber Shop late that afternoon I wondered if my school would still be there on Monday morning or if I would still be alive.

Russia's attitude to the missile defense system the U.S. has placed in Eastern Europe to protect against missiles from Iran implies Russia, or at least Putin, isn't convinced the Cold War is completely over. Or, maybe Putin wants the appearance of a conflict with the U.S. so he can use the threat of a foreign enemy to suppress freedom of speech in Russia.

The mistake many Americans made after World War II was in thinking that "communism" was the enemy instead of Russia. The Soviet Union was never anything more than a fancy name for the Russian Empire. To rephrase Marx, in Russia "socialism[communism] was the opiate of the people."

Many believe that Putin is not really confortable with democracy. Many Russians are complaining that he stole the recent election.

Putin probably is smart enough to realize he cannot afford a military invasion of Eastern Europe, but he may want to be able to intimidate East European governments into having closer relations with Russia, particularly in the economic area.

If Putin can get the U.S. to retreat from its promises to protect Eastern Europe from missile attack, he may think he can convince East European governments that America can't be relied on to protect them. He might then attempt to intimidate them into abandoning ties with the west in favor of a close relationship with Russia.

Such a threat could produce a major crisis that Obama would be incapable of handling because he isn't a leader.

Nikita Khrushchev decided to place missiles in Cuba because he misinterpreted President John Kennedy's inexperienced handling of the Bay of Pigs and the Berlin Crisis as weakness. Will Putin decide Obama is weak after Obama in effect has said that appeasing Putin is more important to Obama than doing what the American people want?

In the second presidential debate in 1976 President Gerald Ford in a slip of the tongue said, "there is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration." He later said he meant to say that he wouldn't recognize such domination.

Obama cannot claim that his statement to Medvedev was a slip of the tongue without appearing incompetent.

In October, 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill meet with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Moscow and discussed the percentages agreement that accepted Soviet spheres of influence in southeastern Europe. After World War II ended Stalin expanded Soviet control well beyond the percentages suggested by Churchill by sending in groups to establish Soviet style dictatorships.

Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt had to give concessions to Stalin because they still needed Soviet help to defeat Germany. They believed they would need Soviet help to defeat Japan.

Obama has no such need for Russian support against foreign enemies. He has no need to appease Russia in eastern Europe.

Would Putin interpret an Obama "retreat" from eastern Europe as an opening to try to help Russia friendly groups in eastern Europe replace their governments with governments friendly to Russia, possibly by using questionable tactics? If that happened would some American politicians respond by trying to start a new McCarthy type era?

Former President Bill Clinton needs to remind Obama that reelection doesn't insure a full term of office. Clinton was impeached after being reelected and barely escaped removal from office. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign after a landslide victory because his supporters used questionable campaign tactics.

If Obama gives in to Putin and Putin takes advantage of him to create a major crisis, Obama could face impeachment. The charge wouldn't be corruption as was the case with Clinton and Nixon. The charge would be "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" (i.e., treason).

Reply

“Nobody Wins a War” - General Savage

"Nobody wins a war. Some just lose more than others." B.Gen. Frank Savage, commander of the WWII 918th Bombardment Group in the tv series "12:00 High" made this statement in the episode "P.O.W: part 2".

Savage provides a different view of victory in war from the one that assumes the country that controls the battle field after the war is the "winner".

We usually consider WWII to be a war we won, but what did we actually win?

We didn't gain any large territory. Instead, we gave the Philippines its independence.

We didn't take money or other wealth from the losers. Instead, we helped rebuild them. : We had significant losses with over 400,000 deaths and a huge debt. Our enemies suffered much heavier losses with deaths in the millions and destruction of their cities.

What is important about WWII is not what we "won" but what we didn't lose. Thanks to the efforts of men like my dad and my uncles we didn't lose our freedom.

The countries we defeated had to accept rule by others with the victors determining their form of government. Germans had to accept division of their country for several decades after the war.

This form of evaluation can be applied to the current conflict in Afghanistan. We're not trying to win control of Afghanistan or to take whatever mineral wealth it might have. American firms could purchase those minerals without a war.

We're not in Afghanistan to "win" anything. We're there to prevent losses like those that occurred on 9/11.

Success in Afghanistan will depend not upon how much we win, but on how much we don't lose. Afghanistan is part of the War on Terror that may last as long as the Cold War.

Reply