tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5979318204027907996..comments2024-03-28T11:57:44.907-05:00Comments on Althouse: Donald Trump is always saying "We have to do it/We have no choice," so why did he ask why the Civil War had to be fought?Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger239125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74161911642309445722017-05-04T22:08:49.693-05:002017-05-04T22:08:49.693-05:00"You may have preferred that Al Gore spent ye...<i>"You may have preferred that Al Gore spent years trying to deliver an arrest warrant for bin Laden...."</i><br /><br />This actually would have been the far better--and legal--choice.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62109907005802315242017-05-04T17:12:49.652-05:002017-05-04T17:12:49.652-05:00"The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with...<i>"The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq."<br /><br />I have debated the Iraq invasion with educated people in other forums. The fact that the 9/11 attack happened meant we were at war.<br /><br />You may have preferred that Al Gore spent years trying to deliver an arrest warrant for bin Laden but the facts are the facts.</i><br /><br />How much kookier a response can you come up with. She's talking about a <i>specific</i> country. Did the fact that Archduke Ferdinand get assassinated mean that Tonga was at war? And what about the stake that Greenland held in the War of 1812. Maybe American Samoa couldn't afford to be spared in the Peloponnesian War. <br /><br />You're a really deep thinker, Michael K.Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Togetherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059991118123693141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53882038419616744992017-05-04T14:37:05.892-05:002017-05-04T14:37:05.892-05:00Trump may never take us to war, but he wants his o...<i>Trump may never take us to war, but he wants his options. He wants to be able to say We have to do it, we have no choice and to assert that it's not his personal failure to avert war.</i><br /><br />Where did the idea come from self-loving Donald that he allows the thought of failure to cross his mind? To speculate that Trump means other than what he said is exactly why his so-called populism has taken over the minds of those citizens looking for change. And while it is not true that the <i>sine qua non</i> of a politician is the ability to lie or over-promise his voters, it is essential that he have some sense of personal reflection when he is acting in this fashion.<br /><br />But the audience and the sound of his voice spewing a nonsensical stream of consciousness from the speakers that leads The Donald to his brash and insensitive actions. Talking down to anyone that he has disagreement with from afar, only to love this person after a face to face meeting and then back to hate when the sun sets is a sickness folks - not a demonstration of leadership.gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219461694806089345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29957214792715127702017-05-04T13:01:58.845-05:002017-05-04T13:01:58.845-05:00America had no good reason at all. Arguably it pro...<i>America had no good reason at all. Arguably it protected foreign markets, but would we have really lacked trading partners if Germany had won and gotten another piece of France?</i><br /><br />I agree. German atrocities in Belgium were pretty bad an stirred up a lot of sentiment.<br /><br />Teddy Roosevelt was also beating war drums. Without his monumental ego we would never have had the fascist Wilson.<br /><br /><i>even though the people and government there had nothing to do with 9/11--because bin Laden and his crew happened to be physically located there at that time, (though swiftly escaping once our attack commenced), what rationale connected 9/11 to Iraq?</i><br /><br />The Taliban supported him and his camps. That was something to do with it.<br /><br />With Iraq, you have a point but you can go to the debate at <a href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/48474.html" rel="nofollow"> Chicagoboyz and see the argument. </a><br /><br />I'm not going to repeat it here, especially as I think you have a closed mind on those matters.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40767317399072998842017-05-04T12:48:51.076-05:002017-05-04T12:48:51.076-05:00"I have debated the Iraq invasion with educat...<i>"I have debated the Iraq invasion with educated people in other forums. The fact that the 9/11 attack happened meant we were at war."</i><br /><br />With whom? What state entity? Where do we invade? Do we just pick a country (or countries, as it turned out) at random? <br /><br />If there was wrong-headed decision to attack Afghanistan--even though the people and government there had nothing to do with 9/11--because bin Laden and his crew happened to be physically located there at that time, (though swiftly escaping once our attack commenced), what rationale connected 9/11 to Iraq?<br /><br /><i>ZILCH!</i>Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76458187516564211792017-05-04T12:40:33.942-05:002017-05-04T12:40:33.942-05:00"'All that was necessary was for Bush to ...<i>"<b>'All that was necessary was for Bush to have decided not to attack/invade Iraq. Simple: No US invasion, no war!'</b><br /><br />"Except for that strange thing that happened to the WTC, Robert."</i><br /><br />What is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq?<br /><br /><i>ZILCH!</i><br /><br />The 9/11 attacks did not warrant starting any war anywhere, as they were not planned or mounted by any state entities, but by stateless terrorists. The proper response would have been long-term infiltration of Al Qaeda or people connected to them in order to arrest as many of the individuals involved as could be found. The course we chose--a course the neoconservatives had long wanted to choose for their own reasons--has had the inevitable outcome: utter and ongoing failure.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86916167890299111092017-05-04T12:08:22.292-05:002017-05-04T12:08:22.292-05:00"I consider the Kaiser the #1 war criminal an..."I consider the Kaiser the #1 war criminal and he should have been hung by the allies after the war."<br /><br />He may have deserved it, but that would certainly have given Germans a strong grievance against the Allies and made him a martyr. Better that he exiled into disgrace knowing he blundered into ending his dynasty. Though by leaving he left the Weimar Republic the unenviable task of accepting a harsh treaty and trying to govern a country in turmoil.<br /><br />"France was not innocent. They were interested in revenge for 1870."<br /><br />Yep--in many ways I'd put the blame on them as much as on Germany. They wanted blood too.Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62650270601103713712017-05-04T12:05:14.309-05:002017-05-04T12:05:14.309-05:00"They had more provocation, with the German H..."They had more provocation, with the German High Seas Fleet (I hope everyone has read "Dreadnaught," the best explanation of the war I have seen.) and the atrocious treatment of Belgium."<br /><br />Part of the problem was that the Germans didn't think invading Belgium would be enough to commit the British to war. That, and the Germans figured the French would fall a lot quicker.<br /><br />But if the British had less strong reasons for entering that war, America had no good reason at all. Arguably it protected foreign markets, but would we have really lacked trading partners if Germany had won and gotten another piece of France? Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4581499794512054332017-05-04T12:02:34.267-05:002017-05-04T12:02:34.267-05:00I read "Paris 1919" several years ago an...I read "Paris 1919" several years ago and it is good.<br /><br />Somewhere, I have read some interesting information about the French ambassador to Russia and his role in the war.<br /><br />France was not innocent. They were interested in revenge for 1870.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27198774684817512182017-05-04T11:58:35.097-05:002017-05-04T11:58:35.097-05:00So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure...<i>So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure how strong a hypothetical it is. But I can see the argument that if WWI had been allowed to run its course, without US involvement, WWII would not have happened. <br /><br />Quick: How many people here know why we were involved in WWI? What dog did we have in that fight? What US interests were we fighting for?</i><br /><br />Interesting speculation. I have thought about this many times. I told a friend of mine, a retired British army doctor, that we should have stayed out. He was shocked so I added that they should have, too.<br /><br />They had more provocation, with the German High Seas Fleet (I hope everyone has read <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great-ebook/dp/B0089EHK70" rel="nofollow"> "Dreadnaught," </a> the best explanation of the war I have seen.) and the atrocious treatment of Belgium.<br /><br />I have been listening to the audio of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Wake-Last-Crossing-Lusitania-ebook/dp/B00N6PD3GE" rel="nofollow"> "Dead Wake," </a> the story of the Lusitania sinking. I had not realized that Wilson was dopey in love with his second wife, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Wilson" rel="nofollow"> Edith Galt, </a> who would run the country after his stroke in 1919. His great love was right at the time of the Lusitania sinking and the world crisis.<br /><br />I consider the Kaiser the #1 war criminal and he should have been hung by the allies after the war.<br /><br />Without his lack of judgement, there probably would have been no war.<br /><br />Had the Germans used better judgement, we would probably not have gotten into it.<br /><br />Yesterday, on my commute to Phoenix, I was listening to a new audio book, <a href="http://www.audible.com/pd/History/D-DAY-Through-German-Eyes-Audiobook/B01DFG9CWC" rel="nofollow"> "D-Day Through German Eyes, </a> very interesting book. It was written by a man whose grandfather had been a Wehrmacht magazine writer and who had interviewed troops manning the defenses in Normandy in early 1944. After the war, the grandfather had found many of the men he had interviewed, and who had survived the war, and interviewed them again.<br /><br />The grandfather died and the grandson finished the book. In one interview, just as the Omaha Beach invasion is arriving, an older German soldier turns to the young man later interviewed and said, "How do you like Hitler's decision to declare war on the US, now ?" He added that the US might have stayed preoccupied with Japan except that Hitler declared war. As he said it, American troops were surrounding the "Resistance Point" they were defending.<br /><br />Interesting comment in the heat of battle.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47367407206320555902017-05-04T11:48:23.714-05:002017-05-04T11:48:23.714-05:00Re Versailles, we could have lots of discussion ab...Re Versailles, we could have lots of discussion about it. One of the things we could discuss would be whether WWII: The Pacific would have happened had the Japanese not been denigrated and seriously disrespected as racially inferior at Versailles. By Wilson as well as others.<br /><br />There is a great book called Paris:1919 (I think) and a multi-part documentary (on NetFlix I think) of the same name that covers it in depth. I recommend both. <br /><br />As to Germany, regardless of the merits, it was seen in Germany as a giant slap in the German face. Hitler used it as a tool to beat more moderate politicians into the ground.<br /><br />If anyone here has not watched Triumph of the Will, you should do so. It is one Helluva a movie. Available free on the net. YouTube, I think NetFlix. <br /><br />Sure, TOTW is propaganda. Sure it is somewhat over the top. But it worked. Versaille, true or false, was a tool used to stir up German sentiment that led directly to Hitler and WWII. <br /><br />John HenryJohn henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529920006532904660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64850569476001034872017-05-04T11:41:22.603-05:002017-05-04T11:41:22.603-05:00I wonder if we offered Kim a trillion dollars and ...<i>I wonder if we offered Kim a trillion dollars and a nice place to live if he would take it? </i><br /><br />No reason to take it, since he sees himself as both filthy rich and invincible given that he has the threat to drop a nuke.James Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12351535910140039924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37493634077594759352017-05-04T11:31:29.582-05:002017-05-04T11:31:29.582-05:00"What was so bad about the Versailles Treaty?..."What was so bad about the Versailles Treaty? They deserved it, plus it was less harsh than various treaties imposed upon the French by the Germans. Versailles didn't ruin the German economy."<br /><br />It was bad from the Germans' standpoint, just as Germany's peace after the Franco-Prussian War was bad for the French--and in both cases led to unfinished business. If you're going to impose a peace like that, you'd better commit to holding the vanquished country down. If you don't do that, don't be too surprised when they come at you again.<br /><br />By the '30s the French were in the worst of all worlds--having imposed a treaty on Germany that pissed off the Germans (even those not inclined towards the Nazis) while losing the will to crack down when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland or added new territory or rebuilt its military in violation of the treaty. Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22890145282634625822017-05-04T11:15:19.261-05:002017-05-04T11:15:19.261-05:00What was so bad about the Versailles Treaty? They...What was so bad about the Versailles Treaty? They deserved it, plus it was less harsh than various treaties imposed upon the French by the Germans. Versailles didn't ruin the German economy.<br /><br />Of course the mistake was in not marching to Berlin and hanging the Kaiser. But by then everyone was tired and wanted a nap. And to be fair, they got about twenty years of nap time out of the deal.Bad Lieutenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18091901464339059169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1216187519755301942017-05-04T10:47:32.134-05:002017-05-04T10:47:32.134-05:00"So, it's a hypothetical and I am not eve..."So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure how strong a hypothetical it is. But I can see the argument that if WWI had been allowed to run its course, without US involvement, WWII would not have happened."<br /><br />I think it's a reasonable argument. Churchill might have said something to that effect. But it's also possible if Germans felt their country got the worst of the postwar deal (even if it had been less unfavorable than Versailles) it might have enabled Hitler as well.<br /><br />In any event, we had no business in that war and Wilson deserves a lot more discredit than he gets for it. I think we lost more Americans there than we did in Vietnam, with nothing to gain for the U.S. or for our allies (except a brief reprieve until WWII).Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49254827910175928682017-05-04T10:37:38.826-05:002017-05-04T10:37:38.826-05:00Speaking of WWI, last week I watched PBS' The ...Speaking of WWI, last week I watched PBS' The American Experience on US involvement in WWI. 3 2 hour episodes.<br /><br />It did not address the point I made above about our involvement causing WWI but it did cover a lot of ground. One of the most interesting parts, for me, was the propaganda war within the US and the anti-sedition act.<br /><br />People were getting lynched (killed) not for opposing the war but for not actively supporting it. The Washington Post wrote approvingly about the lynching of an Olahoma farmer who would not buy war bonds. I knew a lot of this but there were some details I had not realized<br /><br />Very interesting program. Available for free, though I don't know for how long, at www.pbs.org<br /><br />John HenryJohn henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529920006532904660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32303505894571547992017-05-04T10:36:44.829-05:002017-05-04T10:36:44.829-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.John henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529920006532904660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80987580102858066522017-05-04T10:30:40.404-05:002017-05-04T10:30:40.404-05:00Blogger Bad Lieutenant said...
It is not a st...Blogger Bad Lieutenant said...<br /><br /> It is not a stretch to say that Wilson is the single person most responsible for WWII or that he is responsible for prolonging the human suffering of WWI by a year or more.<br /><br /> Strong words John Henry. Can you provide a little foundation? <br /><br /><br /><br />Most historians agree that WWII was basically WWI part 2. Speaking strictly of the European portion, not Japan. <br /><br />The argument that some historians make about Wilson is that by the time of US entry, both sides had beaten themselves silly. Had we not entered, the opposing sides would have negotiated a peace. Probably not as favorable to Britain and France and US bankers but some kind of peace. <br /><br />Had this happened, WWII would have been unnecessary.<br /><br />Because Wilson dragged us, kicking and screaming, into the war Germany was beaten and the horrible Versailles Treaty imposed on it. That would have made Hitler's rise unlikely, would have stifled many of the reasons for WWII.<br /><br />I say kicking and screaming in both WWI and WWII because very few Americans supported US entry into either war. In November 1941, polls were 70-80% against our involvement. I don't know there were any polls in 1916 or so but sentiment was very high against our involvement. Wilson's main campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war"<br /><br />Many Americans in 1916 were immigrants or at most had grandparents who had come from Europe. They had come to the US to avoid getting caught up in the kind of bullshit that European rulers and pols had been getting them killed in for centuries. <br /><br />So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure how strong a hypothetical it is. But I can see the argument that if WWI had been allowed to run its course, without US involvement, WWII would not have happened. <br /><br />Quick: How many people here know why we were involved in WWI? What dog did we have in that fight? What US interests were we fighting for?<br /><br />John Henry<br /><br />John henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529920006532904660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6790667110133073202017-05-04T09:53:30.338-05:002017-05-04T09:53:30.338-05:00Blogger Inga said...
Michael,
The attack on the WT...<i>Blogger Inga said...<br />Michael,<br />The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq.</i><br /><br />I have debated the Iraq invasion with educated people in other forums. The fact that the 9/11 attack happened meant we were at war.<br /><br />You may have preferred that Al Gore spent years trying to deliver an arrest warrant for bin Laden but the facts are the facts.<br /><br />"The Path to 9/11 " DVD is now available since Hillary lost and Disney appears to have given up hiding it. Why don't you watch it ?<br />Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20216878385004225162017-05-04T09:18:06.967-05:002017-05-04T09:18:06.967-05:00Taking advantage of historicismTaking advantage of historicismPaddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44469942858408882192017-05-04T09:16:29.812-05:002017-05-04T09:16:29.812-05:00I don't know if that was the reason either but...I don't know if that was the reason either but Trump unlike historians has spent his life in business competing with others which has honed his ability to anticipate his competition thereby making him a more foresighted person, I think. <br /><br />As to historians, my opinion of them, including David McCullough has diminished after watching this Q&A with David McCullough by Brian Lamb.<br /><br />https://www.c-span.org/video/?426887-1/qa-david-mcculloughdreamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08758740197698814061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29403099907140437462017-05-04T09:03:08.281-05:002017-05-04T09:03:08.281-05:00I don't think this means what you think this m...I don't think this means what you think this means, Ann. Even most liberals agree that "some" wars must be fought--they usually point to WWII (the last "good war" in their minds) as an example of that, as they often did during the Iraq War (at least among those liberals who opposed the Iraq War). So why would getting them to defend the Civil War as another "good war that had to be fought" get them flat footed in opposing any war Trump fights? Their point was never that we can never go to war, it's that some wars are bad ideas.<br /><br />And frankly, I agree with them on that sometimes. We absolutely should not be getting more involved in Syria, or Afghanistan. The problem was how so many liberals seemed ok with it when Obama was getting more involved in these same wars, simply because they trusted the guy doing it. <br /><br />Stick with your other theory--Trump didn't think much about what he said, and ran off at the mouth, and everyone's going nuts over it like they always do. But his actual statement wasn't all wrong (except maybe the "no one asked" part--that was just verbal seepage, not worth addressing). Even "good" wars should be examined to see if there may have been a better way. Because even if the Civil War destroyed secession and slavery, it was a steep price to pay. Why not ask whether we could have learned something about avoiding it?Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70152401186951540182017-05-04T08:44:43.674-05:002017-05-04T08:44:43.674-05:00Michael,
The attack on the WTC had nothing to do w...Michael,<br />The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq.<br /><br />Your man Trump tore into Jeb Bush about the mistake of invading Iraq during one of the those debates, don't you recall?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86023441645936322792017-05-04T08:25:08.077-05:002017-05-04T08:25:08.077-05:00"All that was necessary was for Bush to have ..."All that was necessary was for Bush to have decided not to attack/invade Iraq. Simple: No US invasion, no war!"<br /><br />Except for that strange thing that happened to the WTC, Robert,.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11112303464843195722017-05-04T08:24:15.515-05:002017-05-04T08:24:15.515-05:00"For me it's not that he's old. It...<i>"For me it's not that he's old. It's that he thinks anyone gives any Fs when he goes to sleep."</i><br /><br />I don't "go to sleep" when I give up on your childish rants, you creep. There are these things called books and there are lots of other blogs that don't have juvenile dementia.<br /><br />I am a little surprised that Ann allows this behavior but it is her blog. If she wants to entertain obscene angry commenters who sound like Stephen Colbert drunk, it is her choice.<br /><br />I still think he must work the early shift at McDonalds as he seems to show up late in the day.<br /><br />Actually, I was tired last night as I got up at 3:30 to drive to work.<br /><br />Maybe Ritmo should get a better job than burger flipping.<br />Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.com