A sliver in time : 17 August 1943

[Al_Capone_Junior]

17 August 1943

60 bombers lost in one day, each with a crew of 10 men. These were B-17 Flying Fortresses (my favorite airplane) and B-24 Liberators.

This was but a moment in history, a sliver of time in the biggest and most significant historical event mankind has ever seen, WWII.

This was just the Americans, just in the 8th airforce, just in the heavy bomber division. A sliver in time, just a snapshot of a single moment, in a single place.

Veterans, I salute you! I don't care if you're in Irag, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, or anywhere else.

al

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
This was but a moment in history, a sliver of time in the biggest and most significant historical event mankind has ever seen, WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now what it makes it more significant than every other event again? My ideological brainwashing detector is beeping at an alarming rate.

[ QUOTE ]
This was just the Americans, just in the 8th airforce, just in the heavy bomber division.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. If you want to see the really big casualties, try the other front of the European theater.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Now what it makes it more significant than every other event again? My ideological brainwashing detector is beeping at an alarming rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't even insult me in this way.

20 million or more Russians died in WWII, and I won't list the millions of Jews, Italians, Germans, Japanese, and every other race / nationality that did too. I wasn't making light of any of this. A SLIVER in time. You obviously completely missed the point of my entire post, which is sad, because I was just trying to point out that things have often been very different than they are today, and we are lucky, thanks to the sacrifices of many in the past. These sacrifices include those who fought Germany in bombers during August 1943.

I'm too young to have done anything about it, but if I could have, I probably would have joined the 8th airforce. It was a time when about 2/3 did not make their 25 mission tour of duty.

I am far from brainwashed. I have never even been in the military, but there is nothing wrong with being patriotic, or even in admiring the sacrifice of others in the past.

If you cannot see why WWII was more significant than other events, you are blind, and I suggest it is YOU who needs to read up on your history.

I'm just a history buff, and I'm not brainwashed. I was highly offended by your post, but I am doing my best to be nice in my response.

al

[MMMMMM]

Sam, often your posts are pretty good, but this post has me baffled. What are you saying here? Don't you think WWII was an immense and very significant event in human history? Certainly not a run-of-the-mill event, anyway. And what's wrong with a snapshot into a sliver of it?

Also, why presume "indoctrination" on Al's part? I really don't see where you are coming from in this post, nor do I see why you felt the need to strike a sarcastic tone.

[sam h]

Yeah, that was out of line and kind of uncharacteristic. I just apologized to Al.

For what its worth, I do think WWII was a very important event or set of events. But I also think that every generation tends to term a defining event that preceded them as the "most important event in history," especially generations in powerful countries that emerged victorious from wars.

I also have very mixed feelings right now about patriotism in America. But it was definitely uncalled for that I lashed out at Al.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks, and that was a gracious reply.

Interesting take on the defining events from generation to generation, by the way.

[Utah]

Remember, As Alger would tell you:

The 600 dead on those planes were not heroes. They were simply idiots that deserved to get spanked or put behind bars. Its quite possible that they were no better than murderers for hire.

We know, from Alger, that a real hero would have smashed the bombing controls or purposely crash the planes to prevent the bombs from being dropped?

[slavic]

But I also think that every generation tends to term a defining event that preceded them as the "most important event in history," especially generations in powerful countries that emerged victorious from wars.

While I can't confirm the first part of your statement the later half is absolutly true. WWII’s aftermath vaulted the US into first world status and because of our undamaged industry gave us a significant head start in the world’s economy. Our lives would have been much poorer (on several levels) if things had been different.

[Cyrus]

Equating the value of the deaths of those who died fighting against the threat of the Nazis with the deaths of those who died fighting against the threat of non-existent WMDs takes some doing! But, as I can see, it is certainly not beyond your capabilities.

I applaud your fantastic display of ignorance and proportion.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
This was but a moment in history, a sliver of time in the biggest and most significant historical event mankind has ever seen, WWII.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most significant historical event?

I vote for the moment that Mohammad decided that his religion would be one of conquest throughout the world. We are still paying for that one.

Of course, that is from the negative side of history, on the positive side there are certainly several that are more important.

[jokerswild]

Too bad Bush and Cheney can't be saluted on this premise.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, again you make the same mistake.

Pat Tillman was killed fighting IN AFGHANISTAN, NOT IRAQ!!!

In the post above, Utah mocked Alger's comments in another thread regarding Rene Gonzalez' article which referred to TILLMAN'S death in AFGHANISTAN and related matters. So by mocking Alger's crass and unjustified condemnation of Tillman, Utah is also comparing those killed fighting the Nazis with those killed fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan--NOT with those looking for WMDs or fighting insurgents in Iraq.

Now, while al-Qaeda has not the overall military muscle of the Nazis, they are still an extremely dangerous and grave threat. Tillman's endeavor and sacrifice were important. Whatever you may think about the search for WMD's in Iraq has nothing to do with this matter because Tillman wasn't in Iraq looking for WMD's, he was in Afghanistan fighting al-Qaeda. That's what Gonzalez wrote about, and that's who Alger referred to with his uncalled-for remarks, and that's the comparison Utah was using in mocking Alger's comments about Tillman.

In the other thread where you and I discussed this, you even accused me of getting it backwards--but it was YOU that got it backwards then, and, incredibly, still apparently have it backwards now.

I explained it in our last exchange in that sub-thread: in my last post I gently told you Tillman died in Afghanistan not Iraq (as you wrongly supposed). I had thought that would be the end of it, but...Nooooooooo....here you are using the same erroneous presumption in this thread. There is, apparently, only one solution: now where did I put my masonry drill bit?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

These were B-17 Flying Fortresses (my favorite airplane)

Agreed, though I am a big fan of the P-38.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I do think that our geographic isolation from the rest of the world allowed us to come out way ahead of the rest of the pack, even the other "winners" (like anyone really won).

I really don't consider WWII to be the preceding event to my generation, I am too young, and it was too long ago. It was just so collosal that I doubt anything of such magnitude will happen again for a while, tho undoubtedly at some point it probably will happen again (I kinda hope I am not around to see it).

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I like the P-38 too, but the P-51 mustang can't be easily dismissed either!

My buddy Warren (the guy in my recent fishin' stories on NVG) actually flew in some B-17s (flight engineer), tho he was not in WWII. He told me lots of cool stuff about them. There are a couple still flying, and you can even pay about $350 and get a ride in one of them. I will probably do that sometime in the next year or so.

al

[Legend27]

You should play Battle Field 1942 and fly all the WWII Airplaines you want. Tanks too. Heck even subs. It's the most realistic game I've ever played on a computer.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Post like this are so damn irritating. Why is it that the negative, nasty posters are always lurking around, just waiting to lash out at anything and everything?

Why put words in someone else's mouth? Yours here have said it all.

Please do not make light of this subject. My uncle flew B-17s, and other planes in WWII and I don't appreciate the flames.

al

[Cyrus]

I will explain it again, this time as I would explain it to a dumb twenty-year old. Tell me if you want me to go younger still:

Al Capone posted a nice tribute to American airmen who died in WWII. So far so good. But then Utah took the opportunity to ridicule Chris Alger's post about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being conducted only to promote American hegemony --- Utah sarcastically wrote that the American airmen who died in that WWII campaign probably died "for American hegemony too". I found the comparison to be, frankly, ridiculous! (Comparing the gigantic and real threat of Nazism with the non-existent threat of Iraq --or Afghanistan, if you want-- is actually beyond ridiculous, it is childish.)

Now you butt in with verbiage about "senility", "Pat Tilman", "Afghanistan" and assorted such crap. What is wrong with you? There is no difference between the hegemonic aspirations of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is all there is to it. And you get all flustered and flailing for no reason at all (you didn't even address the core issue, i.e. is Nazism in any way comparable to the threat of Iraqi WMDs or is Utah off his rocker?)

I must admit, it is extremely heartening to see that the core supporters of George W Bush are as infantile in their logic and comprehension as you and Utah seem to be! Carry on, boys.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

"Please do not make light of this subject. My uncle flew B-17s, and other planes in WWII."

American sacrifices, in aid, money and most preciously lives, during World War II cannot be underestimated. They are, as well as they should, still deeply appreciated around Europe.

The world in general, and Europeans in particular, have no antipathy towards Americans. The antipathy is mostly reserved for the American government.

We can differ in our opinion about American governments but we cannot reasonably disagree about those men and women who gave their lives in World War II so that Nazism and Japanese militarism are defeated. (The geopolitical considerations are not to be ignored, of course, and they were substantial in the formulation of American stance in that war. But the American heroism and the enormous benefit which that heroism brought to Europe are not to be doubted.)

Similarly, we can also both dislike the Soviet political system - but we cannot dispute that the Soviets proffered colossal sacrifices in the struggle against Nazism. (The Soviets suffered much more, in numbers, than the Americans but that fact does not slight the American sacrifices in any way.)

You should be proud of your uncle.

--Cyrus

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
but we cannot dispute that the Soviets proffered colossal sacrifices in the struggle against Nazism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While they did sacrifice here, it should not be forgotten that the Soviets were originally on the side of Nazi Germany (in the cooperation of the gobbling up of Poland).

Only after they were invaded, did they finally join the side of the good.

[Utah]

Hi Al Capone Junior,

I apologize for taking your post in a direction you did not want it to go. However, there is nothing really negative or nasty in my post.

Any man who dies in the service of the US deserves great recognition. And, the nation needs to recognize their sacrifice.

All I did was place Alger's comments into a WWII context to show how absolutely insulting, degrading, uncompassionate, disrespectful, and anti-American Alger and Co are in their treatment of US soldiers currently engaged in war. To call a dead US soldier an idiot who needs to be slapped is beyond all bounds of decency. Especially, when that soldier gave up more than most and especially when that soldier displayed exemplary character and discipline.

To degrade one set of soldiers (e.g. those currently fighting, Tillman, etc.) and to mock them simply because one doesnt like the war their fighting in is simply unacceptable.

[Utah]

I live right next to a county airfield where they hold an annual WWII plane show.

When the planes land they come right over my house about 150 feet up. What strikes you the most is the noise. The first time a couple of B25s? buzzed my house it scared the living crap out of me. Then, you heard the high pitch whine of all the fighters and you try to imagine then fighting. It the movies and games its always glamorized. However, when you see the planes flying next to each other and you imagine one of those huge warbirds crashing, it starts to seem horrific.

Talk about WWII planes reminds me of when I went to Omaha Beach in 1999. It completely changes your perspective on the war. WWII is kinda seen as 'fun' and 'cool' because of all the video games relating to it. But man, when you walk through the cemetary at Omaha Beach it shocks you hard and it eerily feels like all these men had just died. You walk the beach and you cant imagine how God awful it must have been to storm it.

[MMMMMM]

Utah's post was a direct and very close parody of Chris Alger's criticism of Tillman. That whole thing was about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, not about WMDs in Iraq. You conflate and forget marvelously.

[ QUOTE ]
(you didn't even address the core issue, i.e. is Nazism in any way comparable to the threat of Iraqi WMDs or is Utah off his rocker?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Utah is NOT comparing the threat of Nazism to Iraqi WMDs, you bonehead;-) He is comparing it to the threat of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Can you not follow a simple train of thought: from Gonzalez' article to Alger's remarks to Utah's parody of those remarks? That all had to do with Tillman and Afghanistan, NOT Iraq WMDs. So why do you keep bringing that up and further accusing Utah of comparing WWII deaths to deaths re. Iraq WMDs? IT WAS AGHANISTAN NOT IRAQ.....,sheesh.....wow...

I guess I now see what Bruce Z. meant when he said you cannot admit to being wrong, but here you are wrong plain as day.

The soldiers in WWII died bravely fighting an evil menace. Tillman died fighting an evil menace in Afghanistan: he was fighting al-Qaeda. Why do you keep inaccurately conflating it with Iraqi WMDs?

Do you actually think al-Qaeda in Afghanistan are/were not a threat? Amazing.

[Cyrus]

"It should not be forgotten that the Soviets were originally on the side of Nazi Germany (in the cooperation of the gobbling up of Poland).

Only after they were invaded, did they finally join the side of the good."

This is a thread about American casualties in World War II. If you want to open it up to discuss the Soviets' part in it, fine.

Briefly then : The Nazi philosophy of nationalism, genetic supremacy and vigorous belligerence touched western democracies, such as Britain (Churchill openly admired Hitler in the 30s) and the United States (where eugenics was frenetically practiced and legislated!).

When Nazi Germany started arming up, its resolute objective was Vital Space (lebensraum) to the East. The anti-communist western democracies were very much in favor of such a possibility, having failed themselves to unseat the Bolsheviks from power when they invaded Russia in the 20s. (Bet you didn't know that, Mr President sir.)

Stalin was simply more cunning than the western leaders. He outfoxed them. He knew Hitler was a ruffian who would go all out against anyone who stood in his way and that sooner or later he would fight also against the West. Stalin accepted the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact as a tactical ploy to force the West's hand. When Hitler invaded Poland, the two major western powers could do nothing any more and declared war on Germany.

...If anything out of the above, Mr President, you find difficult to follow, just let me know, and I will repeat it in monosyllabic words. (But what is 'monosyllabic' you ask.)

[Cyrus]

"Utah's post was a direct and very close parody of Chris Alger's criticism of Tillman."

Utah already apologized for the negative tone in his "parody" , in a thread started by Al Capone as a tribute to American WWII heroes. So you are playing to an empty room already.

"That whole thing was about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, not about WMDs in Iraq."

I already explained to you that both American military adventures, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are part and parcel of American hegemonic strategy. That they have nothing to do with "fighting terror" or bringing democracy". That Tillman’s death in Afghanistan was futile if Tillman was fighting for "democracy in Iraq" -- but very useful if he was fighting for American hegemony. (My guess is that he though he was fighting for the former.)

You were always slow on the uptake but now you seem to be on some kind of brain slowing predicament which I cannot fathom yet. Give me time.

"Utah is NOT comparing the threat of Nazism to Iraqi WMDs, you bonehead. He is comparing it to the threat of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan."

So you still think that the two are comparable? The Nazi threat is equivalent to the threat of ..Qaeda? Wow. I will loan you some bones out of my bone head, if that'll kick start your brain.

"Do you actually think al-Qaeda in Afghanistan are/were not a threat? Amazing."

Your ignorance and your cavalier use of falsehoods are what's amazing!

The 9/11 attackers did not originate from Afghanistan. The 9/11 attackers were western-bred and educated men without any previous problems with the law and without any other involvement in military matters. None of them was Afghani and none of them was Iraqi. And neither Afghanistan or Iraq were guilty of helping 9/11 terrorists. (Afghanistan merely provided shelter to "anti-Soviet hero" and "Muslim brother" bin Laden. Which is what the U.S. had been doing with the likes of bin Laden for years!)

Going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq to fight the 9/11 attackers was not merely a folly, meant to sucker in those easy suckers such as yourself. It was a step towards establishing American hegemony in the world. The rest is chaff.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Thanks Utah, you captured the essence of what this thread was supposed to be all about.

al

[trippin bily]

I work in a Hotel and we currently have a convention of WWII
2 vets having a convention. One group is the 494th bomber group that flew B24s. Also have a Marine group that flew B25s. I have sat for hours listening to stories from the great men. I was a history major in college and it is facinating to talk to the men I read so much about. One of the pilots was on the Doolittle raid on Japan.
Last night while I was talking to yet another group From the USS Bataan two young kids came up the the group ( kids were about 12 - 15 just guessing ) and thanked them for their service to our country. They walked away after a million thank yous from these great men. There was truly not a dry eye in that group including myself.
No politics here just wanted to pass on one of the neatist things I've ever been able to see.

[Utah]

Respectfully, both of you are mistaken. I am not comparing one threat with another. I am saying it doesnt matter in the least.

Tillmen was simply a soldier who died serving his country in harms way. We should bestow on him the respect and honor that someone deserves with that distinction.

btw - Cyrus, I did not apologize for being negative. I apologized for taking this thread in the wrong direction. With respect for Al Capone Junior, I will not continue on this sub-thread. I just wanted to set the record straight as to what I meant.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah already apologized for the negative tone in his "parody" , in a thread started by Al Capone as a tribute to American WWII heroes. So you are playing to an empty room already.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?! Utah specifically stated there was nothing negative in his post; he only apologized for taking the thread in a direction Al Capone Jr. had not intended. Here is what he said: "I apologize for taking your post in a direction you did not want it to go. However, there is nothing really negative or nasty in my post."

[ QUOTE ]
I already explained to you that both American military adventures, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are part and parcel of American hegemonic strategy. That they have nothing to do with "fighting terror" or bringing democracy". That Tillman’s death in Afghanistan was futile if Tillman was fighting for "democracy in Iraq" -- but very useful if he was fighting for American hegemony. (My guess is that he though he was fighting for the former.)You were always slow on the uptake but now you seem to be on some kind of brain slowing predicament which I cannot fathom yet. Give me time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think going after al-Qaeda in their lair had nothing at all to do with fighting terror? Then you must be getting senile at the ripe old age of 35 or whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
So you still think that the two are comparable? The Nazi threat is equivalent to the threat of ..Qaeda? Wow. I will loan you some bones out of my bone head, if that'll kick start your brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are not equivalent, but that was the comparison Utah was using in order to lampoon Alger's criticism of Tillman. Really simple stuff if you just follow it through.

[ QUOTE ]
The 9/11 attackers did not originate from Afghanistan. The 9/11 attackers were western-bred and educated men without any previous problems with the law and without any other involvement in military matters. None of them was Afghani and none of them was Iraqi. And neither Afghanistan or Iraq were guilty of helping 9/11 terrorists. (Afghanistan merely provided shelter to "anti-Soviet hero" and "Muslim brother" bin Laden. Which is what the U.S. had been doing with the likes of bin Laden for years!)

[/ QUOTE ]

The attackers were al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, where they had well-established training camps. Just because the attackers didn't live in Afghanistan--some were even sleeper agents in the U.S.--doesn't mean they weren't part of the umbrella organization. Their orders came from al-Qaeda. Wow. You really are living on another planet it seems.

[ QUOTE ]
Going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq to fight the 9/11 attackers was not merely a folly, meant to sucker in those easy suckers such as yourself. It was a step towards establishing American hegemony in the world. The rest is chaff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al-Qaeda committed a horrific attack on us, and has since attempted other attacks on our homeland, which were prevented. They have succeeded in oither attacks overseas.
We needed to attack and destroy as much of al-Qaeda as possible.

As for Iraq, much new evidence has slowly come to light which builds an increasingly significant(though somewhat circumstantial) case against Saddam for WMD's. Anyway, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan needed to be dealt with, and it's a good thing that Iraq is being dealt with too.

Do you think hegemony is a greater evil than terrorism? Just wondering.

Good night.

[andyfox]

My dad was in the army corp of engineers in New Guinea. I always joke with him I'm surpised we won the war because he's all thumbs. He told me once MacArthur visited and they were trying to show off, transporting a jeep from one boat to another and they accidentally dropped it in the ocean. Oh well.

I think he likes that story because it's easier on the memory than some of the more unpleasant things he saw. He was going to attend officer school when he reached for something on a top shelf and felt his armpit tearing. Soon his skin started ripping apart all over and he spent six weeks in Letterman General Hospital in the Presidio (San Francisco) recovering from some tropical skin disease the name of which he doesn't even remember. Never made it to officer school.

[MMMMMM]

I know your intent was not to compare one threat with the other; your intent was to lampoon Alger's depecatory remarks about Tillman.

Cyrus then erroneously said you were comparing the Nazi threat with the Iraqi threat, at which point I chimed in because the context was Tillman and Afghanistan, not Iraq and WMDs. So although you weren't intending to compare the threats, Cyrus said you were--PLUS he got the threat wrong in the contextual sense. Since Cyrus and I had gone round about this before, I did not want to let it drop until he understood the proper context. That's all I meant by saying that was your comparison--if I had said it was the context, it would have been worded beter, I suppose.

I certainly didn't think your intent was to draw a parallel there, but since Cyrus erroneously thought you were drawing a parallel between the Nazi threat and Iraq, I was just trying to correct the old billy-goat as best I could. Sorry if I mangled your meaning a bit in trying to straighten things out for Cyrus. Although next time I suppose I won't bother; I'll just bring some new hay and a couple windfall apples and throw them down for him;-)

[BeerMoney]

Al, I liked your post. Thanks for the history lesson. I will ignore what some of the other bozos have posted.

BeerMoney

[Gamblor]

The world in general, and Europeans in particular, have no antipathy towards Americans. The antipathy is mostly reserved for the American government.

So wrong.

Acquaintances who travel with Americans inform me that many Americans travelling in Europe sew Canadian flags on their bags so as to not arouse the ire of those in the foreign tourist services industry.

Those with dual citizenship invariably use their Canadian passports.

That ain't cause the Maple Leaf looks nice on a blue background.

[Gamblor]

Vital Space (lebensraum)

lebensraum means "living space", Ms Smith.

[Cyrus]

Here's Utah:

"Tillmen [sic] was simply a soldier who died serving his country in harms way. We should bestow on him the respect and honor that someone deserves with that distinction."

If we go by this rule, then every Third Reich soldier who died fighting for Nazism should be honored and respected. Well, I will never agree with such a notion! "My country, right or wrong" doesn't cut it any more.

Here's MMMMMM:

"You think going after al-Qaeda in their lair [Afghanistan] had nothing at all to do with fighting terror? Then you must be getting senile at the ripe old age of 35 or whatever."

This senility must, then, be affecting a lot of Washington. It appears to be the growing consensus that the latest two military adventures of America abroad have done nothing to fight terrorism. In fact, they have increased the anti-American sentiment around the world, and especially among Muslims. The ranks of would-be terrorists have grown, not decreased.

Still, a fantasy world is so much better for some people than the real world I suppose.

"The attackers were al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, where they had well-established training camps. Just because the attackers didn't live in Afghanistan --some were even sleeper agents in the U.S.--doesn't mean they weren't part of the umbrella organization. Their orders came from al-Qaeda."

And where, pray, is this country, called al Qaeda, so that we can bomb it, attack it, invade it, occupy it? I guess it must be Afghanistan. No, it is Iraq!! (Maybe Syria?) Perhaps Saudi Arabia... A sleeper were in Texas - let's bomb the hell outta Texas.

Seriously, what you are unable to realize is that the war against terror is not a conventional war. And conducting it in the manner of conventional wars is tantamount to inviting defeat. (I concede, nonetheless, that you get more satisfaction from your fantasy world whereby Apaches and Tomahawks and other Indian-named weaponry are fighting terror, than you would ever get from accepting the myriad difficulties in truly fighting terror. Here's the TV remote, do what you must.)

"As for Iraq, much new evidence has slowly come to light which builds an increasingly significant (though somewhat circumstantial) case against Saddam for WMDs."

LOL. You are incorrigible. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

Should I argue with a brown-shirted acolyte of the lebensraum ideal about the proper meaning of the term? Hmmm.

This is probably one argument I should let you win, hands down. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

But I won't! Lebensraum indeed translates literally to "living space", "habitat". However, the Nazi connotation reflects the need for expansion; the Nazi ideology submitted that the Germans needed room (to the East) to expand. It is not as if the Germans did not already have a home (a habitat); they did. But the German volk had the "divinely bestowed right" to expand Eastward, at the expense of backward and barbaric races, such as the Poles and the Slavs. Moreover, without that extra living space, the German race would be choked and driven to degeneration. Lebensraum was vital (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vital) to the German race. Hence, its translation as Vital Space. The Nazi use of the term has changed its very connotation.

...I'm sure all those racial terms make your Zionist supremacist heart beat faster -- so consider the above as my offering of a cheap thrill to your ass.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you take a number of assumptions and treat them as fact. What a poor reasoning habit. I grow weary of correcting your errors only to find that you never admit it when you are wrong anyway, so I'll leave it for you to reread your own post and identify for yourself the assumptions you so blithely work with.

As for the WMD issue, you should be keeping an open mind. I have read a number of reports not too long ago which provide reasonable evidence that Saddam had a "reconstitutable WMD" program. We will likely hear more about this before the year is over (and quite possibly before elections).

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
"Tillmen [sic] was simply a soldier who died serving his country in harms way. We should bestow on him the respect and honor that someone deserves with that distinction."

If we go by this rule, then every Third Reich soldier who died fighting for Nazism should be honored and respected. Well, I will never agree with such a notion! "My country, right or wrong" doesn't cut it any more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? We should reserve our praise and honor only for those soldiers who die serving a country who's ideals we agree with? How sadly Amerocentric and deluded. An amazing majority of Germans (courtesy mostly of a well-oiled propaganda machine - ring any bells?) believed that they were fighting a war forced upon them by the Western powers (Great Britain/France), the Bolsheviks and/or the jews. Many were proud to take up arms for their beloved nation. Criticize their leaders all you like, but the average man fighting in the German Wehrmacht was just as much a victim of WWII as the men fighting for France, Russia, Japan, Great Britain or the US.

To the extent that you believe serving in the armed forces is an honorable and admirable thing, that courtesy should be extended to anyone who sacrifices some portion of his life to serving his nation. Condemning the common grunt for the decisions of generals (or chancellors or presidents) seems pretty senseless to me.

[Chris Alger]

"Any man who dies in the service of the US deserves great recognition."

If this is true, the nature of conflict and the manner of fighting it is irrelevant to any right of praise. Which means it's true without regard to the nature of any U.S. soldier's actions. Which means that it should apply not only to the U.S. but to any soldier of any country because once you remove the purpose and justification of warfare then no war can be distinguished from another except by origin, purpose, and manner of fighting, factors you deem irrelvant, at least for "our" side. This means that every member of the SS who died also deserves "great recognition," which of course no one believes.

Or are you so naive you think we only fight good fights? A lot of Americans do, perhaps enough for the government to believe it has a blank check to fight bad ones too. Certainly this was the case during the days of Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC), twice awarded the Medal of Honor. Here's Butler's famous description of his "service to his country": <ul type="square"> I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." [/list] Note that Butler wasn't defending the country from invaders, liberating the oppressed, fighting facsism, totalitarianism or terror. He was invovled in the wars they don't teach you in high school, like the Philippines and Haiti and Central America.

Why do the soldiers that lost their lives performing such acts all deserve "great recognition?"

Or how about this, from Howard Zinn's People's History. Recall that the U.S. killed some 200,000 Filipinos to colonize that country long after the Spanish left. Zinn quotes one U.S. soldier saying "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers'.... this shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." According to you, this guy, if he got killed, would deserve "great recognition." How about David Fagan, who broke US ranks to fight along side Filipinos and "for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." Him I suppose you'd shoot.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah is also comparing those killed fighting the Nazis with those killed fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get it in your head that Tillman was "fighting al-Qaeda?"

Or do you just like to pretend that everytime a U.S. soldier kills someone, that person must be a "terrorist?" (If so, no need to break 60's tradition: let's just call everyone who we kill "Vietcong").

Or do you think that any mujahideen or Islmicists are fair game, so that Tillman deserves the sort of praise we give to Soviet soldiers who died in Afghanistan?

[MMMMMM]

Well, who was Tillman fighting when he was killed in Afghanistan? I thought it was al-Qaeda--maybe I read that somewhere--or maybe I just presumed it; at this point I don't recall. So who was it?

I tend to think any "international jihadists" are fair game, since they are fighting against the West in general and keep attacking.

Anyway, whomever Tillman was fighting were presumably militants and, I would guess, Islamist militant jihadists, quite possibly al-Qaeda. Is this not so, and do you have anything specific and important to mention about the event?

[Gamblor]

consider the above as my offering of a cheap thrill to your ass.

While I'm sure you've been dreaming about it, I wouldn't let you give my ass a cheap thrill if you were the last Jew-hater on earth.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
who was Tillman fighting when he was killed in Afghanistan? I thought it was al-Qaeda--maybe I read that somewhere--or maybe I just presumed it; at this point I don't recall. So who was it?

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean you don't know? What kind of person praises killers without knowing who they kill and therefore can't know why they kill other than they were "following orders?"

The only thing that's public about Tillman's targets and his killers is that they fought in a region notably opposed to the unelected U.S.-backed government in Kabul. Tillman was on a patrol that came under anonymous fire, he pursued and was killed. None of those that shot at him were captured, killed or identified. Combatants like these are usually described as "militants" or "suspected Taliban" but nobody knows whether they're allied with the Taliban, anti-Kharzi warlords we're targeting or just Afgahanis who want the U.S. out of their country. I've looked and haven't found a shred of evidence that anyone Tillman was shooting at had anything to do with al-Qaeda.

[Cyrus]

"I have read a number of reports not too long ago which provide reasonable evidence that Saddam had a "reconstitutable WMD" program."

Reconstitutable! Wow. This one got a sexy sound! If that word didn't make my day ain't nothing will.

"We will likely hear more about this [WMD thing] before the year is over (and quite possibly before elections)."

Looks like Dubya's last chance. (That and Ralph Nader.)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean you don't know? What kind of person praises killers without knowing who they kill and therefore can't know why they kill other than they were "following orders?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I actually praised Tillman, Chris, though I have no problem with others doing so. That said, if he was doing what I would presume he was doing, I think he probably deserves at least respect, and possibly praise.

Interesting that you've looked and found no report that he was attacked by al-Qaeda.

I would presume that one of his missives in Afghanistan was to hunt or fight al-Qaeda remnants, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean that's what he was doing.