Theoretically, Congress could take the drastic action of defunding the court system and/or impeaching judges because they don't like their decisions. Tom DeLay suggested such after the Schiavo fiasco.

Let's hope that we've passed that danger point with the crazier element of the Boomers.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Marc Lamb is an incredible *fool*.

Marc, tell me what would have happened if Halsey, not Spruance, had been in tactical command at Midway. (I did an essay on this at OCS, BTW). It illustrates perfectly the intellectual and emotional divides facing us now. (Hint: You and Halsey/Miles Browning would have lost Enterprise and Hornet as well).

Uh, can't really address the naval tactics much coz I wouldn't know what to do with a carrier anymore than I would a cruise missle or a space shuttle.

I wasn't addressing tactics, dude, military or otherwise. That should've been plain enough. That it wasn't concerns me, the "*fool,*" a little bit.

Like, can you actually read? Or do you just see things?

Originally Posted by zilch

Uh, can't really address the naval tactics much coz I wouldn't know what to do with a carrier anymore than I would a cruise missle or a space shuttle.

I wasn't addressing tactics, dude, military or otherwise. That should've been plain enough. That it wasn't concerns me, the "*fool,*" a little bit.

Like, can you actually read? Or do you just see things?

You can't do tactics or strategy. And you only read what pleases your desired outcome. I was trained to deal with all possible outcomes. Especially the negative outcomes. In my old profession, you paid for your mistakes with your life. So I had to study them as well. I'll quote from a PM I sent to another member who quizzed me on this:

Most of this ground has been gone over many times. Since Halsey had been unable to command TF 16 (Enterprise, Hornet), due to a severe skin infection, he chose his screen commander, Raymond Spruance, a non-aviator, to replace him. This unexpected selection left Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher, commanding TF 17 (Yorktown) in nominal command, since he was senior to Spruance.

Thankfully, in practice, it was Spruance making the big calls. This may well have won World War Two, by itself.

Spruance found himself at odds with Halsey's egomaniac staff from the start. Think of Halsey and his staff as the Bush Administration, and you'll get the picture. All mouth, and no competence. The list of screwups by the Halsey staff makes for stomach churning reading, even today. Hot-headed Captain Miles Browning as chief-of-staff to Halsey played Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld combined. The quiet, cool Spruance had to play his hand carefully at shipboard politics as well as the battle.

Spruance made two big calls during the battle:

1) Launch everything at first contact.
2) Controversially, to break off the action after the loss of Yorktown and most of his aircraft. (After the war, this cost him his fifth star. Halsey and his cronies were outraged- and chagrined after Spruance turned out to be right. No good deed goes unpunished)

That saved the US Navy, and America. The US still had chips left to play (carriers) the next hand. Halsey would have pursued the Main Body of the Japanese fleet, probably on to disaster. His ego would not have allowed otherwise (as demonstrated later at Leyte Gulf).

Sound like anybody we know?

Such an outcome would have tied the US down in the Pacific for most of the war. Midway freed the US to pursue "Germany First".

Tactics and strategy go hand in hand: the best tactics in the world will not save a bad strategic plan. Likewise, bad tactical execution can doom even the best plan.

Midway freed Truman to make his speech. Your guy has lost his war.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Tactics and strategy go hand in hand: the best tactics in the world will not save a bad strategic plan. Likewise, bad tactical execution can doom even the best plan.

Hey there, Wally!

Now, I never served in the military, but I know bad ju-ju when I see it. The Iraq war was bad ju-ju from the start.

I'm reading State of Denial right now. My opinion of Rumsfeld continues to sink. It appears to me that he was more interested in seeing his concept of the leaner, meaner military in action than in actually listening to the top uniformed guys and getting the best operational plan going.

The contrast to how things were done in Gulf I is getting clear.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

You can't do tactics or strategy.

So, does this sound like a nice "tactic"...

We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.

Yeah, this Truman (Xer-like "Get the job done, and get it done completely" kinda Kifflie-guy) sounds a lot like Kifflie when she first appeared on this forum right after 9/11:

I like their hardheaded approach here. 'Course, I'm an Xer, so that's probably why... That pretty much sums up what this Xer is feeling right now. Get the job done, and get it done completely. -- Kiff '61, September 14, 2001.

The, um, "hardheaded approach here" part was a response to a New Republic op-ed she posted. Here's the gist of it:

The ashes of Manhattan cover the entire land. The pictures wound and wound and wound. The planes slam every time for the first time, the buildings fall every time for the first time. Over and over our brothers and our sisters die. These are the records of a defeat, and of a derangement of the universe. Eloquence is stupid. We have been slaughtered. Even if we live in a culture of forgetting, this we must never forget.

Yep, Bush sucks, alright.

Bush ain't no Truman, you know, the Xer-like "Get the job done, and get it done completely" kinda Kifflie-guy. No, Bushie pooh-poohed around the al Qaeda bushes in search of an oil well. Right oh!

p.s. BTW, nice tactical naval history lesson, dude. Sorry, ain't no "tactics" here, dude. Wanna talk about those 3,000 dead American GIs uselessly slaughtered, during the D-Day training exercises? How about the slaughter at Tawara? Ever heard of that massive bloody naval boondoggle?

Originally Posted by zilch

p.s. BTW, nice tactical naval history lesson, dude. Sorry, ain't no "tactics" here, dude. Wanna talk about those 3,000 dead American GIs uselessly slaughtered, during the D-Day training exercises? How about the slaughter at Tawara? Ever heard of that massive bloody naval boondoggle?

Indeed, Tarawa, Pelieu (sp), the blue-on-blue massacre of the excercise landings, Admiral King's response to Operation Pakenschlag, Convoy PQ-13, Kasserine Pass, the Hurtgen Forest- we could go on for a long time.

Or not. Blame the liberals for all thier failures (I'm sure FDR caused Browning's staff to screw up so much). Fine. FDR/Truman won thier war in four years. Blame Lincoln much for McClellan? Abe finally got it right after three years- Bush has had five. Blame that flaming liberal Washington for Benedict Arnold turning traitor? Washington won in about four years as well.

Is your point being that the casualties are not high enough for you yet in *this* war? Channeling Bill O'Reilly much? You want Americans to die in greater numbers so that the war will become popular?!? We're all wusses because we know that the war is a failure?

Wahington, Lincoln, FDR/Truman won thier wars. Your guy is a failure. You supported him, and must share the blame. Screaming that the hated liberals screwed up too isn't going to get you off.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I can't stand it anymore. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Herb, the argument wasn't over wether or not a federal judge is constitutionally legal or legitimate, so to speak. Just to let you know, I was actively participating in two arguments involving two slightly different subjects with two different liberal posters prior to your entry into the discussion. No disrespect intended, but, I'm going to have to place you on my temporary ignore list while I finish what was already in progress with Kiff and M&L.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

You can't do tactics or strategy. And you only read what pleases your desired outcome. I was trained to deal with all possible outcomes. Especially the negative outcomes. In my old profession, you paid for your mistakes with your life. So I had to study them as well. I'll quote from a PM I sent to another member who quizzed me on this:

Most of this ground has been gone over many times. Since Halsey had been unable to command TF 16 (Enterprise, Hornet), due to a severe skin infection, he chose his screen commander, Raymond Spruance, a non-aviator, to replace him. This unexpected selection left Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher, commanding TF 17 (Yorktown) in nominal command, since he was senior to Spruance.

Thankfully, in practice, it was Spruance making the big calls. This may well have won World War Two, by itself.

Spruance found himself at odds with Halsey's egomaniac staff from the start. Think of Halsey and his staff as the Bush Administration, and you'll get the picture. All mouth, and no competence. The list of screwups by the Halsey staff makes for stomach churning reading, even today. Hot-headed Captain Miles Browning as chief-of-staff to Halsey played Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld combined. The quiet, cool Spruance had to play his hand carefully at shipboard politics as well as the battle.

Spruance made two big calls during the battle:

1) Launch everything at first contact.
2) Controversially, to break off the action after the loss of Yorktown and most of his aircraft. (After the war, this cost him his fifth star. Halsey and his cronies were outraged- and chagrined after Spruance turned out to be right. No good deed goes unpunished)

That saved the US Navy, and America. The US still had chips left to play (carriers) the next hand. Halsey would have pursued the Main Body of the Japanese fleet, probably on to disaster. His ego would not have allowed otherwise (as demonstrated later at Leyte Gulf).

Sound like anybody we know?

Such an outcome would have tied the US down in the Pacific for most of the war. Midway freed the US to pursue "Germany First".

Tactics and strategy go hand in hand: the best tactics in the world will not save a bad strategic plan. Likewise, bad tactical execution can doom even the best plan.

Midway freed Truman to make his speech. Your guy has lost his war.

Well Pink, the outcome as you stated would have happened, didn't ever happen, so whats the point of even bringing it up or using it as an example to demonstrate tactical and strategic superiority.

What do you fellows make of the Nomad leader, Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, oft promoted by his fellow Nomad, DDE, who took the principles he absorbed in the Progressive Civilian Conservation Corps under 'That Man' and applied them to the Reform of Eurasia (Italian Peninsular Division) in a like Progressive manner?

My late Hero father rather disliked Ike for visiting Gen. Clark into his chain of command. It was not an uncommon emotion within the Italian Campaign community.

I have just received the WaPo's Mr. Rick Atkinson's second volume of his Liberation Trilogy: The Day of Battle-The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944 which follows his An Army at Dawn on North Africa. If it is a good as the first I recommend it to all.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I can't stand it anymore. I don't know if I should laugh or cry...

Herb, the argument wasn't over whether or not a federal judge is constitutionally legal or legitimate, so to speak. Just to let you know, I was actively participating in two arguments involving two slightly different subjects with two different liberal posters prior to your entry into the discussion. No disrespect intended, but, I'm going to have to place you on my temporary ignore list while I finish what was already in progress with Kiff and M&L.

Let's see. Rick quoted the Constitution (which should have been my response), and I quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789. In both cases, the courts were considered part of the Judiciary (i.e. defined under Article III). Congress has also created Article I courts that are under the Legislative Branch but have limited powers. Here's a breakdown of both types.

Note: the courts that make legal rulings, rather than act as legal administrators, are all Article III courts.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Theoretically, Congress could take the drastic action of defunding the court system and/or impeaching judges because they don't like their decisions. Tom DeLay suggested such after the Schiavo fiasco.

Let's hope that we've passed that danger point with the crazier element of the Boomers.

As long as there is at least one Boomer in Congress, that danger is still there.

Originally Posted by zilch

Yeah, this Truman (Xer-like "Get the job done, and get it done completely" kinda Kifflie-guy) sounds a lot like Kifflie when she first appeared on this forum right after 9/11:

I like their hardheaded approach here. 'Course, I'm an Xer, so that's probably why... That pretty much sums up what this Xer is feeling right now. Get the job done, and get it done completely. -- Kiff '61, September 14, 2001.

The, um, "hardheaded approach here" part was a response to a New Republic op-ed she posted. Here's the gist of it:

The ashes of Manhattan cover the entire land. The pictures wound and wound and wound. The planes slam every time for the first time, the buildings fall every time for the first time. Over and over our brothers and our sisters die. These are the records of a defeat, and of a derangement of the universe. Eloquence is stupid. We have been slaughtered. Even if we live in a culture of forgetting, this we must never forget.

Yep, Bush sucks, alright.

Like Sean, I suppose I've evolved since then. Good reminder.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well Pink, the outcome as you stated would have happened, didn't ever happen, so whats the point of even bringing it up or using it as an example to demonstrate tactical and strategic superiority.

When you win the argument, you gleefully state that you have won the biggest one of all time. When you lose it you trivialize the loss. There's a word for that in debate; it is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Admiral Halsey was known for one fault: he predictably took the most aggressive course of action. During most of World War II engagements of the US Navy, such was appropriate. To be sure, a comparison of current political leaders to Admiral Halsey is inapt; Halsey would have been right at any other time, as has been shown in his record. But his plan for Midway would have been a catastrophe. That would have been the worst possible time for failure, in view of the significance of the naval battle.

Gotcha!

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Herb, the argument wasn't over wether or not a federal judge is constitutionally legal or legitimate, so to speak. Just to let you know, I was actively participating in two arguments involving two slightly different subjects with two different liberal posters prior to your entry into the discussion. No disrespect intended, but, I'm going to have to place you on my temporary ignore list while I finish what was already in progress with Kiff and M&L.

Whether M&L and I (or Rick) are "liberal" is not the point. Mustang took you on over this very same issue, and he is no liberal.

Congress has the power of the purse. However, no republican system that I'm aware of functions without an independent judiciary, with its own constitutional responsibilities and its own hierarchical structure.

Judges are appointed for life-long terms, or, if elected, their terms are almost always more lengthy than those of the average legislator. In this way, judges can look at the big picture and stay out of the day-to-day business of politics. Sometimes that means making decisions that aren't popular.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Like Sean, I suppose I've evolved since then. Good reminder.

Evolved since when? People don't evolve over a few of months on such weighty matters, ma'am. Once the initial shock and awe of 9/11 wore off, you simply regained the smug comfy composure of your pre-9/11 self. Of course, somewhere between your shock and rebound the U.S. invaded a nation, Afghanistan, and killed lots of people, the Taliban, who had not attacked us on 9/11, and in your 9/11 daze you applauded it. "Get the job done, and get it done completely," you cheered!

Ah, but then came the problem of our decade-old menace Saddam. But now, in your newly regained pre-9/11 composure, you decided that America could live just fine like before, and that we ought to just wait for the next attack, whatever it might mean.

Methinks you think getting "it done completely" can simply wait until your people, the Democrats, are properly running the show in Washington (your apparent fourth turning birthright). And if that means a few more thousand or even hundreds of thousands of Americans die between now and then, well that's just too bad.

Chastising Kiff for this emotional response to 9/11:

I like their hardheaded approach here. 'Course, I'm an Xer, so that's probably why... That pretty much sums up what this Xer is feeling right now. Get the job done, and get it done completely

which was a comment written only three days after the events, is pretty low, even for you. We were all mad as hell at whoever had done this, and who that was wasn't even clear at the time. So we all responded with raw emotion ... mostly anger and grief. Personally, I don't think Kiff needed to apologize or even accept a claim of evolving for having that feeling. At the time, any of us that weren't inherently heartless felt the same. Your reaction may have differed, of course.

But that was then, and now you just needed that quote as a foil to make this point:

Originally Posted by zilch

Evolved since when? People don't evolve over a few of months on such weighty matters, ma'am. Once the initial shock and awe of 9/11 wore off, you simply regained the smug comfy composure of your pre-9/11 self. Of course, somewhere between your shock and rebound the U.S. invaded a nation, Afghanistan, and killed lots of people, the Taliban, who had not attacked us on 9/11, and in your 9/11 daze you applauded it. "Get the job done, and get it done completely," you cheered!

I guess credit should be offered where it's due. That was a nice try at a strawman setup. The only thing lacking are a few facts. You see, the Taliban really were guilty. They had actively conspired with those who committed the crime. In a US court, they could be convicted of accessory before and after the fact and misprision of a felony at the very least. Their guilt is pretty obvious since they admitted it.

Originally Posted by zilch

... Ah, but then came the problem of our decade-old menace Saddam. But now, in your newly regained pre-9/11 composure, you decided that America could live just fine like before, and that we ought to just wait for the next attack, whatever it might mean.

... and for the umpteenth time, what in hell does Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11? I'll save you the key strokes: nothing!

Originally Posted by zilch

... Methinks you think getting "it done completely" can simply wait until your people, the Democrats, are properly running the show in Washington (your apparent fourth turning birthright). And if that means a few more thousand or even hundreds of thousands of Americans die between now and then, well that's just too bad.

You're a real piece of work. OK, if you like hyperbole, try this for "getting it done completely":

The real problem isn't Saddam or any ME leader, it's religious fanatics ... just like Timothy McVeigh. The solution: eliminate religous radicals. So to start at the source, let's bomb every rock-rib, fundamentalist church in the good old USA. Once they're all dead, we can start on the 'others'.

If that 'solution' doesn't seem to make sense to you, then you have a rough idea how your drivel appears to us.

When was the last time we had a long-lasting low-level war like the one going on now? I'm not talking about Korea; the shooting was over in something like 2 years there, even if we're still in the middle of history's longest time-out over there. Didn't Vietnam run on for a good many years?

Searching my memory for precedents - I found a couple of 4T wars that lasted a while, but no low-level ones. Historians, anyone?

Originally Posted by The Rani

What a complete and total crock-o-shit. You don't have to be heartless to believe that bombing the crap outta terrorists is the wrong way to go.

Nope. Just awake.
The problem is that, for all the talk about how 9/11 was a 'wake-up call', that's the one thing the vast majority were -- and still are, apparently -- insufficiently motivated to do. And granted, it is much more comfortable to whack the snooze button and tuck onesself deeper beneath the blankets.

Sorry, but you guys are spewing liberal B.S. when you defend the war in Afghanistan but denounce Iraq. Both of them are and were equally stupid.

Substitute 'wrong' for 'stupid'; eliminate the 'liberal' qualifier as unnecessary and counterproductive, and we can agree on this one.

Mr. "shoulder shrug" Maroncelli seeks the high road...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Substitute 'wrong' for 'stupid'; eliminate the 'liberal' qualifier as unnecessary and counterproductive, and we can agree on this one.

Uh, but you were human, too, as I recall... something about your reaction to 9/11 (a quaint re-telling of the "no big deal") struck me as odd, but of consistent character to a determined libertarian. Odd, but at least not human...

Your inconsistent humanity only snuck through when, as I pressed you on the matter, you sought to excuse your reaction (something about your car) rather than defend it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... We were all mad as hell at whoever had done this, and who that was wasn't even clear at the time. So we all responded with raw emotion ... mostly anger and grief...

What a complete and total crock-o-shit. You don't have to be heartless to believe that bombing the crap outta terrorists is the wrong way to go. Any "evolved" person should understand this, and recognize the "mad as hell" reaction as destructive.

OK, then I guess we're back to your solution which is ... do nothing. Doing nothing is how we got into the financial mess we currently have, and doing nothing when attacked at the level of the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon could be expected to yield similar results.

There are times when the choices are between bad and worse, like it or not.

Originally Posted by The Rani, who continued

Sorry, but you guys are spewing liberal B.S. when you defend the war in Afghanistan but denounce Iraq. Both of them are and were equally stupid. But, in your minds, the Bush Sux (TM) agenda trumps all.

The problem I have with the Afghanistan incursion is the total lack of seriousness we applied to it. If Iraq wasn't in queue, we could have easily bombed the al Qaeda strongholds, sent in adequate forces to secure the area, and gotten bin Laden and the rest of the al Qaeda senior leadership, dead or alive. If the Taliban had stood aside, we could have left them in place, as far as I'm concerned. That focused task could have been accomplished in 90 to 180 days.

Instead, just like Iraq, we decided to 'reform' the country. Does that qualify as stupid? Yes. Does that make the justification for the incursion null and void. No. The bad part was the hidden agenda of the neo-con cabal, that just had to have an American enclave as the most important end result when getting the bad guys was the only necessary thing. Overreaching merely guaranteed outright failure. Stupid^2.

To hell with nihilism disguised as libertarianism and thuggishness disguised as patriotism.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

To hell with nihilism disguised as libertarianism and thuggishness disguised as patriotism.

thank you, COS...nicely put.

Originally Posted by 13rian

thank you, COS...nicely put.

Thank you.

Basically, it's not enough for me to "do no harm." Benign neglect is still neglect. We have a responsibility to heal damage, not just to avoid doing it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, then I guess we're back to your solution which is ... do nothing. Doing nothing is how we got into the financial mess we currently have, and doing nothing when attacked at the level of the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon could be expected to yield similar results.

There are times when the choices are between bad and worse, like it or not.

Who says? Does it occur to you that the mainstream choices may all be wrong? When the decision is between neglect and indiscriminately kill, there is a serious problem that cuts deeper into the fabric of American society than any terrorist attack. =/

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

To hell with nihilism disguised as libertarianism and thuggishness disguised as patriotism.

My, oh my... we do work hard to claim the moral high ground, no matter how ridiculous it may be.