Saturday, September 15, 2007
MoveOn, World War II edition
What if MoveOn.org had been in business 65 years ago?
Answer.
Context.
I'm late linking this, so most of you have probably seen it already. But I was unwilling to run the risk that you might have missed it.
14 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Sep 15, 10:32:00 AM:
That is telling and impressive. With the Petraeus ad and with the 9/11 denial in the air recently, it makes me wonder how WWII would have gone if the Infamy types had been around in '42, talking about Roosevelt knowing beforehand of and allowing Pearl Harbor to happen.
40+ years of self-righteous condemnation of only our own government has done a lot of damage. MoveOn and its ilk have built a psychological Maginot Line, determined that any and every threat to our country originates from within our government.
By 
antithaca, at
Sat Sep 15, 12:43:00 PM:
as I commented elsewhere...I wish this ad (the lies and power version) would be run in the NYT...I think it would be pretty effective.
The point I think it makes is: Given a very different war, a very different set of circumstances, and very different leadership (civiliand and military)...a critic could have easily argued all the same points.
I think this renders the current argument(s) utterly impotent.
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 01:01:00 PM:
Totally moronic. Germany declared war on us, duh.
Eisenhower never made staged reports to Congress where he repeated Roosevelt's talking points, duh.
Most of all - the whole frigging war was over in less than five years, so yes, you could say that there was progress in that time. Duh.
Amazing what you people think is intelligent and "impressive."
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 15, 01:17:00 PM:
"Germany declared war on us, duh. "
A courtesy we appreciated. The Iraqis, on the other hand, simply shot at us without such a declaration.
"Eisenhower never made staged reports to Congress where he repeated Roosevelt's talking points, duh."
This pretty much invalidates the idea that you can be engaged in reasonable discussion on this topic.
Why?
Because the possibility that the President's 'talking points' are accurate and that the General's comments naturally reflect that (because they are accurate) isn't even a possibility. But in this view, any military officer who supports President Bush's views is a toadie. Petraeus's career did not begin in January, 2001. By the time Bush was elected, he had been a soldier for 25 years.
But please, don't allow my reason to interfere with your belief system. Cognitive dissonance can be painful and confusing.
"Most of all - the whole frigging war was over in less than five years, so yes, you could say that there was progress in that time."
Because we used atomic weapons, mass incendiary bombings, mobilized the entire economy, conscripted large chunks of the population, and suffered large numbers of casualties. I'm sure that if we did all that again now, all this shit would end quickly, too. So does that mean that you support the idea of entering a wartime economy, suffering mass casualties, firebombing cities, drafting hundreds of thousands, and finally using atomic arms in order to speed our 'progress?'
Or does it mean that you didn't actually think this out, you just decided to throw out random factoids to support your ideological position?
Duh.
It's amazing what people like you think is intelligent.
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 01:30:00 PM:
"So does that mean that you support the idea of entering a wartime economy, suffering mass casualties, firebombing cities, drafting hundreds of thousands, and finally using atomic arms in order to speed our 'progress?'"
Would never happen, which is why it hasn't happened and you never hear Bush proposing it. Why would it never happen?
Because anyone with an IQ above 50 knows that it's not worth it. The moment you start demanding Americans make real sacrifices, they will start totting up the costs and benefits really quick. You really want that to happen?
Oh yeah, that's right. To you, it's probably just all been a "small price to pay." Morons.
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 01:37:00 PM:
"The Iraqis, on the other hand, simply shot at us without such a declaration."
You've got to be kidding. You think that if a country paints your aircraft with antiaircraft radar, that means it's a good idea to go in and invade the country, at the cost of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians and more than $1 trillion?
No wonder you guys are running our country off the cliff. You're all morons.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Sep 15, 02:22:00 PM:
"You're all morons."
Take a PR course at night school.
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 03:48:00 PM:
What a courageous, reasonable and well-spoken anonymous blogger. Must be one of those diverse and open-minded types.
By antithaca, at
Sat Sep 15, 05:57:00 PM:
"Totally moronic. Germany declared war on us, duh. "
You're not thinking like a liberal.
Sure, they declared war. Well, HITLER declared war. Everybody knew he was nuts. And, what could Germany do to us? They had no *real* navy, no 4-engine bombers...but we had both!
And, we were sending supplies to his enemies. OF COURSE he declared war on us!! Wouldn't you?
The only thing of ours Nazi Germany "attacked" were ships we were using to send supplies to England. His Enemy!
And what do we do? We go invade North Africa!!
How many really died on D-Day? How many of our own troops did Ike kill?
LIES.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 15, 06:08:00 PM:
I must be a moron, because I am continually shocked and amazed at how people can simply talk past opposing points, basically ignoring them, and still end on a higher plane of intellectual superiority, confident in their own supreme wisdom. Not to mention contradicting oneself.
For instance: "The moment you start demanding Americans make real sacrifices,"
and
"that means it's a good idea to go in and invade the country, at the cost of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians and more than $1 trillion?"
The implication being that the latter are not 'real sacrifices.' Yet, the country is being 'run off a cliff.'
Ever heard of 'psychological projection?'
Might want to look into that at night school, as well.
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 07:17:00 PM:
We lost more men training for d-day than in the entire Iraq campaign. And, we were still at war with Japan when it happened(and throughout the entire war in Europe), suffering tremendous losses in the Pacific theatre.
The fact that we knew the enemy back then possibly galvanized Americans to the fight, but the losses were tremendous, and FDR's ratings tanked to about Bush's at one point.
The fact that our enemy today isn't easily or directly traceable to a state sponsor makes this a whole brave new world.
And the fact that liberals want to whine about it in the safety of their homes is just pathetic. There's a war on terrorism. We're in it for the long haul.
By , at
Sun Sep 16, 12:42:00 AM:
If we had those liberal moonbats back during WW II we would all be german subjects with a dictator
By , at
Sun Sep 16, 01:07:00 PM:
Well, maybe, maybe not.
Before June 22, 1941, the 'Left' in this country was very much opposed to US intervention in the War in Europe.
Dalton Trumbo wrote a novella called "The Amazing Andrew", in which he channelled Andrew Jackson and denounced Lend - Lease to the British.
Why? Because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Soviet Russia and Germany. The official Party line was to support Germany and fight against Britain and her Empire.
After Barbarrossa started on June 22, 1941, the Left did a complete backflip, joined the war, aribrushed a lot of the past, and has been successful as painting all Republicans prior to Pearl Harbor as isolationinst. Some were, some weren't, but they held their opinions for nationalist reasons, not because the International Proletariat told them what to think.
Today, the Left in Europe is vigorously working to separate the Europeans from the US. You can read Medienkritik (linked by Tigerhawk) to see what is happening in German media. And it's working pretty well, actually.
As Wretchard of the Belmont Club put it, the Red Rider on the Green Horse.
-David
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Sep 17, 10:58:00 AM:
Also Charles Lindbergh, a noted hero of the US, was quite anti-war. Dr. Suess had quite a number of cartoons commenting on the anti-war movement in his collection during the lead up to WWII.
