1. "The Progressive War on Federalism" When you worship big government, things that restrict the power of government are obstacles to "progress."
Representative Sample: The progressives envision a national government that they can dominate and that, in turn, will dominate us. There is no activity over which they do not feel they can or should control. Private property is a panacea, to keep the masses from open revolt, but they really believe that all wealth that is generated belongs to the government except for the portion they permit us to keep.
2. "Obamacare Truly A Disaster" And it hasn't even really gotten rolling yet.
Representative Sample: Want proof Obamacare is a disaster? Just look at how many people would be losing their good health care if it was actually being enforced
3. "Al Qaeda's M&A Strategy" The current model.
Representative Sample: much of al Qaeda's growth in the last decade has been the kind of expansion that any American businessman would recognize: They've systematically tried to absorb regional jihadist start-ups, both venerable and newly created, and convince them that their struggle is a component of al Qaeda's sweeping international agenda -- and vice versa.
4. "I Couldn't Have Written It Better Myself" What if today's attitudes toward war/conflict had prevailed after Pearl Harbor?
Representative Sample: FDR would have threatened negotiations if Japanese aggression didn’t cease immediately and sought sanctions from the League of Nations.
5. "Feeling chills in response to music" Interesting.
Representative Sample: Most people feel chills and shivers in response to music that thrills them, but some people feel these chills often and others feel them hardly at all. People who are particularly open to new experiences are most likely to have chills in response to music, according to a study
To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.
@4: More like:
ReplyDelete-We would have won midway, then suddenly declare war on and invade India. In 1950, the Japanese fleet would be hiding somewhere west of Korea, the only force looking for it would be a PT boat and a few planes.
-FDR would have declared the war over in 1943.
-Despite international treaty, mustard gas would be used against Japanese soldiers.
-Anyone going for a swim would be strip-searched.
"-We would have won midway, then suddenly declare war on and invade India. "
ReplyDeleteIndia was part of the British empire and in the war on our side. So that's not much of an analogy to anything.
"In 1950, the Japanese fleet would be hiding somewhere west of Korea, the only force looking for it would be a PT boat and a few planes. "
That one makes even less sense, given that the article was about WW2 which ended in 1945.
"-Despite international treaty, mustard gas would be used against Japanese soldiers. "
And people like you would complain about it, as if Japan was following international treaties in its actions during the war. But then again, most people who take a blind legalistic view of war are pretty ignorant of history.
"-Anyone going for a swim would be strip-searched"
Because going for a swim is in some way analogous to getting on an airliner.
If you have to work that hard and come up with absolutely nothing to try and refute ridicule of politically correct attitudes toward war, you might want to rethink your political correctness and assumptions.
"India was part of the British empire and in the war on our side. So that's not much of an analogy to anything."
ReplyDeleteI randomly choose India as a country that wasn't part of the Japanese empire. You get the idea though. If we had fought WWII as we fight the war against terrorism, we would have invaded an uninvolved third party.
"That one makes even less sense, given that the article was about WW2 which ended in 1945."
The article is about how WWII would have gone if fought in the style of the war on terror. Had we done so, we would been completely unsuccessful to destroy force that attacked us. (jap. fleet/AQ&Bin Laden)
"And people like you would complain about it, as if Japan was following international treaties in its actions during the war. But then again, most people who take a blind legalistic view of war are pretty ignorant of history."
I don't take a legalistic view of history. However, if a nation signs a treaty, it better abide by that treaty, this holds doubly true if the nation in question previously convicted war criminals for the exact same act.
"Because going for a swim is in some way analogous to getting on an airliner."
True. I just found it amusing.
You really
"If we had fought WWII as we fight the war against terrorism, we would have invaded an uninvolved third party."
ReplyDeleteIraq was an open enemy of the U.S. with which we had been in a state of quasi-war for years. There's no similar analogy for WW2.
"The article is about how WWII would have gone if fought in the style of the war on terror. Had we done so, we would been completely unsuccessful to destroy force that attacked us."
We have hardly been completely unsuccessful. Bin Laden is in hiding, hasn't been able to conduct a follow-up to 9/11, and AQ has suffered extensive damage. Destroying a scattered terrorist force made up of various loosely allied small groups is far different than defeating an enemy state.
"I don't take a legalistic view of history. However, if a nation signs a treaty, it better abide by that treaty, this holds doubly true if the nation in question previously convicted war criminals for the exact same act. "
Not true at all. Nations interpret treaties to their benefit and interest all the time. And the pretense the U.S. actions against Japanese soldiers for their mistreatment of U.S. soldiers is somehow equivalent to U.S. treatment of known terrorists is exactly the type of blind legalism I'm referring to. The two situations are far different for all sorts of reasons. But then again I've already covered that in multiple posts.
We had no rationale for the invasion of Iraq. the purported WMD's didn't exist, and we may have known that going in. Either way, the invasion was an unqualified mistake.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, after WWII, we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for the war crime of torture. They had waterboared American POWs. Now, fifty years later, waterboarding isn't torture. It's not blind legalism, it's expecting a democratic and free nation to be consistent and honest.
"We had no rationale for the invasion of Iraq"
ReplyDeleteNonsense. We had numerous reasons for war -- that's why regime change was the policy of multiple administrations and why we were bombing Iraq daily. But I don't want to argue the Iraq War in this comment thread, especially with someone who is just spouting the usual anti-war tropes as if they were facts instead of highly debatable opinions -- let alone ridiculous conspiracy theory thinking that we somehow knew that Iraq didn't have WMD.
"Furthermore, after WWII, we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for the war crime of torture. They had waterboared American POWs. Now, fifty years later, waterboarding isn't torture. It's not blind legalism, it's expecting a democratic and free nation to be consistent and honest. "
Yes, it's blind legalism if you can't see the difference between American military POWs in a declared war, and a couple of non-state terrorist leaders in an entirely different situation. It has nothing to do with democracy, freedom, consistency or honesty. Before wasting your time arguing with me on that topic on this or any other thread, I suggest searching for the "torture" label and reading the numerous posts I've written on the topic. It's a major issue for me and I'd rather not repeat myself, since I've already written thousands of words on it.
"let alone ridiculous conspiracy theory thinking that we somehow knew that Iraq didn't have WMD."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo#cite_note-0
Now, it may turn out this memo is blown way out of proportion, but it's certainly enough for an investigation, and not just some conspiracy theory.
Oh please. Suggesting that we "knew" Iraq had no WMD based on misinterpretation of the Downing street memo and a complete failure to understand how intelligence assessments are made is pure conspiracy theory thinking. Even the words of the Downing Street memo itself clearly state that we thought Iraq had WMD.
ReplyDeleteThere's a mountain of evidence that the U.S. thought Iraq had WMD, whether hidden stockpiles left over from the Gulf War era, or newly created weapons. There's so much evidence illustrating that the U.S. thought Iraq had WMD that the statement that the U.S. thought Iraq had WMD is a fact, not an opinion. Suggestions otherwise are nothing but conspiracy theories.
And there is a huge difference between arguing that the U.S. inflated the threat from Iraq in order to gain support for the war -- which is a debatable point, and claiming that the U.S. might have known in advance that there were NO weapons of mass destruction.