• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Right-wing irrational rage

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Craig234

She obviously talked to N.V officials (which she seems to have little to say about). She did assure them that she was working on preventing a bombing raid that would do them great harm. If they believed that she would influence the conduct of the war, how many AA assets did it free up from the dike area to move to places where our planes were actually flying?
 
jackschmittusa said:
Craig234

She obviously talked to N.V officials (which she seems to have little to say about). She did assure them that she was working on preventing a bombing raid that would do them great harm. If they believed that she would influence the conduct of the war, how many AA assets did it free up from the dike area to move to places where our planes were actually flying?
Click to expand...

So your logic is, no reason to oppose the holocaust, because if it ended that would just free up Nazi resources for other battles.

Seems to me one of your issues is that you don't give a crap about the issue of excessive civilian casualties, about war crimes targeting civilians.

No wonder you didn't have a word to say about the Nixon quotes favoring those crimes.
 
You win wars by defeating the other side militarily. The other side is defeated militarily when their force cannot fight back effectively. A force that doesn't show up because the civilian populace is so demoralized and/or in disarray is a force that is defeated. This also pertains to the insurgency that happens after occupation, as we saw in post WWII Germany, and lately, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Letting the North escape that type of defeat and only fighting them in the South is, basically, F'ing stupid. It's how conflicts are prolonged, suffering is prolonged, spending is prolonged, etc.

That's why the US, starting with Vietnam (Korea was a different story because of China) keeps not achieving our objectives. We have politicians who need votes from people like you and hamstring the military, rather than doing what is necessary militarily and thus actually achieving our objectives.

Post something else though, please. Anyone coming to this thread at this point (and likely even at the beginning) is doing it for the mere entertainment value you provide.
 
chucky2 said:
You win wars by defeating the other side militarily. The other side is defeated militarily when their force cannot fight back effectively. A force that doesn't show up because the civilian populace is so demoralized and/or in disarray is a force that is defeated. This also pertains to the insurgency that happens after occupation, as we saw in post WWII Germany, and lately, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Letting the North escape that type of defeat and only fighting them in the South is, basically, F'ing stupid. It's how conflicts are prolonged, suffering is prolonged, spending is prolonged, etc.

That's why the US, starting with Vietnam (Korea was a different story because of China) keeps not achieving our objectives. We have politicians who need votes from people like you and hamstring the military, rather than doing what is necessary militarily and thus actually achieving our objectives.

Post something else though, please. Anyone coming to this thread at this point (and likely even at the beginning) is doing it for the mere entertainment value you provide.
Click to expand...

You can barely speak for yourself, don't try to speak for anyone else.

Troll and/or idiot is still the case.

I know it's fun for kiddies to talk tough about 'total war' and feel a little bit of excitement, and they're idiots.

We've had the real thing, and all sides agreed to outlaw it for a reason.

As I said, anyone who needs war crimes debated, it's a waste of time.
 
Right, they outlawed it. Then in WWII the same people who outlawed it, did it; with the exception of gas, but only because of MAD-type response.

Look, I'm sorry you had a thread backfire. I'm sorry your threads are generally entertainment value because of your (largely partisan) delusions. I'm sorry you think so much of yourself you actually quote yourself - twice - in your own sig. It's not really any of our faults, we just enjoy reading your posts for the laughs.

Chuck

P.S. Ok, I'm not really sorry, but still...
 
Troll and/or idiot is now pretty much 'and'. Didn't finish reading your post, and not going to bother with any more from you here, but I was referring to laws passed after WWII.
 
LOL! The OP started a troll thread. Wait?!?! You're the OP! 😀

As for WWII...

...it was the last war we actually won. Figure out why. It wasn't because we had lots of Jane Fonda types running over to the Axis, sitting in their AA guns, doing what they could to subvert pressure on the Axis, etc. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
 
chucky2 said:
LOL! The OP started a troll thread. Wait?!?! You're the OP! 😀

As for WWII...

...it was the last war we actually won. Figure out why. It wasn't because we had lots of Jane Fonda types running over to the Axis, sitting in their AA guns, doing what they could to subvert pressure on the Axis, etc. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Click to expand...


Oooo...Ooooo...can I answer? PLEASE!?!?!?!

I am going to answer anyway. WW2 was the last war we fought.
 
woolfe9999 said:
I was remarking from a more cynical perspective, that Craig's use of this was a tactical blunder. His intent is to attack conservatives, and it ends up backfiring.

If I'm going to look at it on substance, I'll say what I said initially: there are in fact examples of irrational right wing rage that are both current and good, and this wasn't one of them. The issue of it not being current is also important here because Craig's point had to do with the right's rage. Using stuff like Jane Fonda and Chappaquiddick to illustrate the point is problematic if for no other reason because conservatives hardly even talk about those things any more, and haven't in ages. It reminds me as well of conservatives trying to claim that dems have a poor record on civil rights because southern democrats voted against civil rights legislation in 1965. It matters whether things are current or not because we're talking about different political parties, different constituencies, and different philosophies over the passage of 50 years.

Obviously I agree that neither Watergate nor Chappaquiddick are examples of how we want our elected officials to behave and I don't think either should be entirely forgotten.

- wolf
Click to expand...
Can you honestly imagine Craig starting any thread that DIDN'T backfire?

1prophet said:
Should Nixon have been tried as a war criminal for starting the war in Vietnam?
Click to expand...
Clever! He probably has you on "ignore" since he didn't bite.
 
Craig234

Pretty stupid leap to the Holocaust for a lot of reasons.

But do you know why the Nazis were never tried for bombing civilian targets? Because of Dresden.

Tired of arguing with you. Nothing you've said has convinced me that Fonda was blameless.
 
fonda.gif


Jane Fonda told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Sorry, Craig, but you fail miserably when trying to defend that piece of garbage.
 
Matt1970 said:
fonda.gif


Jane Fonda told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Sorry, Craig, but you fail miserably when trying to defend that piece of garbage.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember this. I was going to write a story about the welcome home gatherings my mother used to have for the returning neighborhood boys after their tours were over, but who wants to air this stuff out at ATP&N? so i'll just say I remember this and leave it at that.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Originally Posted by cybrsage

I am going to answer anyway. WW2 was the last war we fought.



Why are you guys not sanctioning his posts?

He has been posting some crazy shit since last November.

Looks really bad.
Click to expand...

Probably because the last time the United States fought in a declared war was in World War 2. There is a difference in a number of things between declared war and "war" as it's waged without the formal declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
 
werepossum said:
LOL I'm about as guilty as Craig, but it is funny.
Click to expand...

Thanks 😀

I've never understood why one needs to say something in 100 words when 10 will suffice. Certainly there are individual styles of posting but at some point the message gets lost in sheer volume. There are times when a more detailed explanation of one's thoughts are appropriate and in fact desirable for clarity sake. When you make a longer post that's what you tend to do. Contrast that to others who seemingly could not make a 50 word response if their life depended on it.

To be fair the premise of rage on the part of some from the right is correct. Certainly there are enough people being paid considerable sums in the media to drum up such sentiments. Some ire is warranted IMO, however there needs to be discernment in such things. Weighing down legitimate criticism with the burden of inane conspiracy claims (Sheriff Joe and his quest to prove Obama's birth certificate is a current example) is ultimately self defeating.

Perversely perhaps the OP has a history of doing the same thing. Fonda is a poor example of misguided rage in any day as has been shown in prior posts. To bring it up today? That's foolish and a tactical error. I consider it that because he and the sputtering right extremists have one thing in common and that is an agenda. The styles are different, where we have a trolling Limbaugh as an example, but he's rather transparent. Subtlety will not earn him fame and fortune.

Then we have the professorial lecture style which is dressed up in the guise of an educator, or so it seems to me. Initially it's controlled until someone dares challenge the post or it's creator. Then we descend to the "idiots and liars" phase.

Recognize both forms of expression for what they are not, specifically an invitation to open and honest debate.

Now I've gone on, eh? 🙂

Many words do not make a wise man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top