Sometimes It’s Nice To Have The Data To Back Up Something You Know Intuitively Is True…Which is basically a quote from a
posting I read on
Dadmanly. The topic is one near to my heart – MSM malfeasance. To the point, Dadmanly refers to an excellent
op-ed by Alicia Colon in the NY Sun, wherein Ms. Colon laments the MSM blindness to the fact that the “grim milestones” of American casualties in Iraq is nearly equal to, or less than, the casualties suffered by our service men and women in peacetime, see
here. Hard to believe, especially the way these death rates are held up as a sure sign we are losing the war.
No – what’s really hard to believe is that the entire MSM establishment has not done the most remedial research in order to put into perspective our military’s death rate since 9/11. Ooops! That wouldn’t work, not if your point is to beat down the will of the American public (And don’t even
think about bringing up the huge difference in our losses from the media’s favorite war, Viet Nam; not to mention the stupendous difference suffered by the Greatest Generation in WWII – doesn’t fit the story line).
And that’s just it – the MSM is willfully aiding and abetting our enemies in their efforts to win the propaganda front of this war. Why do they do it? Well, it seems as if they, along with their Democratic masters (or maybe I’ve gotten this relationship backwards, but does it matter?), do not care who wins the war on Islamic extremism. They are truly only concerned with regaining power. And secretly, or maybe not so secretly, these symbiotic scoundrels have no love for this country, but rather they love some idealistic nirvana-world of international laws, cooperation, and diplomacy. That such a place does not exist on this planet (unless it’s France) does not seem to matter – what matters is that the U.S. is just
wrong, wrong about everything…
And I won’t forget to add, that just because the death rate is low, it does not lessen the tragedy of every fatality and injury suffered by our men & women in uniform, nor does it lessen the terrible blow to each person’s family and friends. But this, like all matters so important regarding the future of our country, must be put into perspective.
I rant off by requesting your thoughts & prayers for our military men and women, wherever they may serve. And to quote
J.D. Johannes, “Support the Troops: Let them win.”
(hat tip: the
Prof...)
“Collateral Damage” in Modern WarfareI know this topic is coming out from left field, but whenever I think about how levels of “collateral damage” (aka, civilian deaths) are measured by today’s standards, I flash back to WWII. My apologies to those citizens of this country who can’t think past the Viet Nam war. I specifically want to address the atomic bombing of Japan.
It always gets my blood boiling when I read accounts similar to that which I just perused regarding the justification for dropping “Little Boy” on Hiroshima
during WWII (emphasis on “during” – some revisionists seem to believe that the Allies/U.S. had Japan at the negotiating table when President Truman made his decision).
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia, under the topic of “
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”:
“The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, have been subject to much debate. In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place. In Japan, the prevailing view is that the bombings were unnecessary, and that knowingly inflicting harm of this magnitude on civilians was inherently immoral”.
Well, I agree, but only from historical perspective. Think about it - there was no one alive at that time who could have described the devastation that such an atomic blast would have caused as an argument against its use. This is simply because no one - outside a relatively few scientists, engineers, politicians, etc. – had seen what an atomic bomb was capable of doing. And even then, these witnessed events occurred in the desert, as opposed to a city environment such as Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
So now, with the advantage of knowing that the defeat of the Japanese was imminent (meaning loss of US/Japanese lives would soon cease), and knowing how much destruction an atomic bomb would cause, of course I/you/we/US Gov’t, etc. would probably had not deployed the Enola Gay and her atomic cargo. And if the Japanese gov’t was convinced of the capability of this weapon in America’s arsenal, they surely would have capitulated without the need for the bomb to be dropped.
I think everyone can agree that none of this sh*t was true at the time, and the argument for lives saved (on both sides) remains the best justification for the action. And remember, back when the Greatest Generation was fighting WWII, the fire-bombing of cities of any military significance was an accepted part of warfare – on both sides. Look up the
fire-bombing of Dresden, or the
London Blitz.All of this has just been my long-winded ranting way of saying - I don’t want to hear any Japanese or other historical revisionists claiming that the use of the atomic bomb was “immoral”. The
Rape of Nanking was immoral. Ending a war by bombing your enemy’s homeland into submission was acceptable warfare of the era, and not immoral.
Japan should feel the shame of their actions circa WWII, not the U.S.
Rant over…
Just in case you still get all your news and info from the MSM…Please read this by StrategyPage – “
Top Ten: Myths of the Iraq War”
There’s no way I could’ve even close to summing things up like this. Try and get news from alternative sources – get different perspectives. Make up your own mind, don’t have it made up for you…
