Comments Posted By Marv
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 53 Comments
REMEMBERING THE BOMB, FORGETTING WHY
I agree with you Rick, I think the criticism of using the bomb must be considered in light of the brutality of the Japanese during that war.
Comment Posted By Marv On 13.08.2008 @ 20:28
The book "Tennozan" puts in perspective the use of the bomb following the battle for Okinawa which was unimaginably brutal. Each consecutive pacific battle was more brutal than the last.
I once knew a survivor of the Bataan death march who was, by then, a POW in Japan. He was convinced that the bombs saved their lives. My father, who was on Guam felt the same.
One other thing needs to be rememered as well. Before Pearl Harbor the majority of the American people didn't want to get involved in a war that they considered as not their problem.
By 1945 they wanted it done (but unlike today they realized it had to be won). In a war where we had experienced more losses in one day as all in Iraq so far, the American people wanted it finished.
Another 50-500,000 losses in mainland Japan was just too high a price to finish a fight we did not start.
People may not like it but it was the correct choice.
You are right, I am having a hard time swallowing this, for this basic reason:
Comment Posted By Marv On 4.07.2008 @ 22:25
The Democrat party of today is not your father's democrat party.
It is filled with hard left socialists (they prefer the word "progressive" or socialist leaning people who do not like the basic fundamentals of our country and seek to change them.
They do not love this country, they wish to change it so that they CAN love it the way they envision it.
They, for the most part, do not fight against the war because or moral reasons, they are against it for political reasons. They do not fight, for the most part, for the environment for moral reasons, they are political movements.
We are on the verge of electing our first full fledged socialist as President (Mccain may not be conservative but he's not a socialist) with a congress led by said "progressives" (believe me, as an ex californian, I have been watching Pelosi for years) who threaten impeachment as a punishment, war crimes against a sitting Executive Branch, nationalizing oil companies and virtually unlimited access to your wallet, not to mention a liberal Supreme Court that took away your property rights in trade for private development, free speech rights during elections and 40% of whom think the 2nd Amendment is negotiable.
Patriotic? Do they love America? Not in my view, not until it joins the socialist community.
Happy Independence Day 2008!
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S SILLY SUGGESTION
"In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens."
Exactly, the Constitution limited the power of government, not the rights of the people.
No one has limited the power of the legislators to protect their citizens, you just have to do it in the boundries of the Constitution.
Like, isn't that what the democrats (ie: socialists) have been screaming about since 911?
Comment Posted By Marv On 1.07.2008 @ 21:09
FINALLY, THE MEDIA 'DISCOVERS' OBAMA-AYERS RELATIONSHIP
You are judged by the company you keep......
Comment Posted By Marv On 17.04.2008 @ 21:52
I know I don't hang or even associate with those types,why does he (Obama)?
HESTON ALMOST TOO BIG FOR THE BIG SCREEN
The only people in love with Arnie are democrats (take it from an x Californian).
As far as Ronnie and Charlton, they grew up in a time when people believed their country was GOOD (like the conservatives of today) and fascism and marxism were bad, unlike the actors of hollywood and democrats of today.
As far as living by scripts.....if you mean the Constitution, I'll pass on the hallucinations of Richard Alpert and take the founding documents.....
Comment Posted By Marv On 7.04.2008 @ 22:40
Have a good trip Manana!
McCAIN AT CPAC - GOOD THEATER, IDLE CHATTER
He can reach out all he wants, I'll never vote for him. I don't like his policies, I don't like his past legislation (everything he has been involved with has been a disaster..), I don't trust him, I don't like his attitude towards those of us conservatives who disagree with him.The only thing he has going for him is his stand on GWOT and I don't trust him not to cave to the liberals on that.
Comment Posted By Marv On 7.02.2008 @ 19:07
Vote for him to keep Hillary or Obama out?......that's just piss poor situation.
WHO ARE YOU CALLING A LIBERAL?
Democrat = liberal = progressive = SOCIALIST.
It's as simple as that and has been coming for 20 years. Now here it is.....on open display in this election. They won't show their true colors, disregard what Hillary said about income reallocation.....
And that's why it is so tough for conservatives this election, because the socialist agenda is already ingrained in our society and Republicans don't want to take the bottle away from the baby......
True Conservatives would......for the sake of the baby
Comment Posted By Marv On 23.01.2008 @ 00:27
"THIS MORNING AS FOR SOME DAYS PAST..."
I look at the ignorance (or willingness to ignore facts for the sake of votes) of the front runners,in both parties,and hang my head in amazement and fear.
You know, we have our military fighting and dying all over the world from Iraq to South America, to the Philippines. People need to realize that Iraq is a battle, NOT a war. Walk away from the battle, you'll lose the war.
Comment Posted By Marv On 5.01.2008 @ 20:44
Busboy,
No, I do not think that "being mean" will make our enemy simply give up and quit. It's obviously not that simple. But it may shorten the conflict.Take the japanese during WW2 for example, who say the Americans as weak and soft, not having the same willingness to die.
By the time Okinawa came around, with the savagery that took place, the Japanese knew that the Americans could be as ruthless as they and it had an effect.
But just as lack of national resolve in Vietnam led to us leaving just as we were winning, this discussion of whether waterboarding is torture only enables them.
If we think waterboarding is too tough and they see this national wreching over how bad we are, they will see us as weak and without resolve. I heard a discussion of this on Fox tonight with one commentator stating we should not do it (waterboard) because it might make the enemy do cruel things to our soldiers that they take prisoner. Fact is, #1) they don't take prisoners, #2, they do far worse to our soldiers when they kill them than waterboarding, which DOESN'T KILL.
They must fear us as they try to make us fear them, it's as simple as that.
Hume,
It is my understanding that nearly all of the early prisoners at GITMO were captured on the battlefield. I also understand that that has changed. But I also understand that GITMO is not our only detention center but is reserved for high value detainees. My point was this: the debate on GITMO, waterboarding, cruelty, Geneva convention, torture/not torture..... would end if we simply dropped them where they stood instead of taking them prisoner. Makes it a moot point.Ellis, you stopped an article too late...Article 4 states who is afforded rights under the convention, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 exclude our current enemy.
Comment Posted By Marv On 11.12.2007 @ 23:15
This discussion is just BS.
Comment Posted By Marv On 10.12.2007 @ 21:38
We are at war.
You cannot win a war unless you are tougher then your enemy.
The solution is simple....shoot them and interrogate them on the battlefield. No prisoners.
The enemy does that and none on the left blink an eye.
Make sure that they know we are the meanest bastards on the block.
That's what will end the war, not this namby pamby BS about whose more cruel, us or them....
Read what they do to our people that they capture then tell me about torture. Waterboarding vs a knife splitting you up the ass?
I'll take the waterboard, I won't like it but I'll live through it.
This nation better get a backbone or we'll lose this war.
