← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 4208 | Posts: 25 | Started: 2002-12-23
2002-12-23 22:02 | User Profile
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried41.html]Sorting Out the Facts, by Paul Gottfried[/url]
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 23 2002, 02:05 ** A final expression of perplexity: Does Frum seriously believe that opposition to American imperialism is a code word for anti-Semitism that the newly formed paleos brought to the American Right in the 1990s? If so, this media-approved maven on conservative thought shows an astounding ignorance of the history of the American Right.
Jewish libertarians, including Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard, Burt Blumert, and Ronald Hamowy, have been outspoken proponents of what we are made to believe is a cover for virulent anti-Semitism. Frum has a right to disagree with their position, but linking it to the prejudice that ruins one professionally is either inexcusably stupid or unspeakably malicious. In a politically and intellectually honest society, one would not have to dignify such idiocy with a response. But then in such a society NROnline would not be a grab bag of infantile, leftist lies. **
If the problem is "Jew" as such, then what do we make of this?
I can't say I ever find much in Gottfried that I disagree with.
2002-12-23 22:34 | User Profile
Being Jewish is a matter of ancestry plus behavior. One must cooperate with the group toward the achievement of group goals to qualify as a Jew in a biological or political sense. I have no particular reason to think that Rothbard, for instance, who supported David Duke's bid for election to the US Senate, worked for the achievement of the goals of the Jewish group.
2002-12-23 23:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 23 2002, 22:34 ** Being Jewish is a matter of ancestry plus behavior. One must cooperate with the group toward the achievement of group goals to qualify as a Jew in a biological or political sense. I have no particular reason to think that Rothbard, for instance, who supported David Duke's bid for election to the US Senate, worked for the achievement of the goals of the Jewish group. **
Then how do you account for Chodorov and Blumert who identify themselves as Jews? And though Rothbard was an atheist, I don't believe he renounced his identity.
Instead of pursuing some "goal" wouldn't it be more reasonable in accord with Occam's razor to say that there are genuine differences of opinion that transcend your idea of a "group."
Best, P
2002-12-23 23:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 23 2002, 17:15 **Instead of pursuing some "goal" wouldn't it be more reasonable in accord with Occam's razor to say that there are genuine differences of opinion that transcend your idea of a "group." **
I think it is reasonable, yet at the same time one cannot simply ignore the overwhelming and specifically Jewish presence in every anti-Western Christendom social theory, political movement or cultural influence.
So to me, on "The Jewish Question" spectrum, I reject both extremes in favor of the middle. I think it is wise to be cognizant enough to recognize overall trends and agents that might pose a threat. At the same time a rational mind can only concede the obvious existence of the individual exceptions.
In the case of Gottfried, why in the world would any "paleo" movement reject one of it's most articulate and coherent voices simply because of inherited genes? Hell, what about Hoffman and Finkelstein?
2002-12-23 23:59 | User Profile
Being Jewish is a matter of ancestry plus behavior. One must cooperate with the group toward the achievement of group goals to qualify as a Jew in a biological or political sense.
mwdallas is correct about this, and I've seen Jews and their allies use the ancestry+behavior formula among themselves. Morris Dees' SPLC just brought up this particular topic in its latest Intelligence Report. I can't link to it right now since my browser is returning a 504 Gateway Timeout error from their site, but I'll be back later to add the link. The gist of the article was that the phenomenon of "self-hating" Jews, as they call it, is "troubling," although they were careful to underscore that it is exceedingly rare.
I've also noticed in my travels that the posters at Free Republic who specialize in wearing their Jewishness on their sleeves tend to regard Jews who do not agree with Zionist/Likud aims (such as those in the media organs of the Israeli Left) as self-hating traitors and "not real Jews."
Instead of pursuing some "goal" wouldn't it be more reasonable in accord with Occam's razor to say that there are genuine differences of opinion that transcend your idea of a "group."
If there are differences of opinion, why would that invalidate the idea of a "group?" Is a general rule or pattern invalidated by a few deviations? Even the SPLC admits that such deviations are rare.
I'm not sure why some people have a hard time with the idea that people generally conceive of "group interests" and then set out to act in accordance with them. Every group possesses this tendency to command the loyalty of its members, with varying degrees of compliance and cohesion. The Jews are notorious for being highly cohesive and compliant, and that's what makes counterexamples like Gottfried, et al., stand out so sharply.
And take a look at the Blacks--why are Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, and Walter Williams household names among many on the Right? Because you can count them on one hand--they're rare and thus noteworthy. And the Blacks tend to also use the ancestry+behavior formula--hence they call the few Sowells of the world "Oreos" and the like--not "real Blacks."
The only place that the ancestry+behavior formula breaks down is among Whites--and that is only a recent phenomenon. Go back several decades, before the advent of the Age of Mass Media, and Whites had it as well. Whether this absence remains permanent among Whites, only time will tell.
2002-12-24 00:11 | User Profile
**If there are differences of opinion, why would that invalidate the idea of a "group?" Is a general rule or pattern invalidated by a few deviations? **
That's not quite the right question. Differences of opinion are not relevant, as there is plenty of room to disagree on how to achieve a common goal. A difference in the goal is what matters.
2002-12-24 01:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 24 2002, 00:11 ** > **If there are differences of opinion, why would that invalidate the idea of a "group?" Is a general rule or pattern invalidated by a few deviations? **
That's not quite the right question. Differences of opinion are not relevant, as there is plenty of room to disagree on how to achieve a common goal. A difference in the goal is what matters. **
But you're defining the group by the goal. Yet the Jews cited here do not, according to you, share in the goal and still identify themselves with the group.
Best, P
2002-12-24 01:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 23 2002, 23:52 ** > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 23 2002, 17:15 **Instead of pursuing some "goal" wouldn't it be more reasonable in accord with Occam's razor to say that there are genuine differences of opinion that transcend your idea of a "group." **
I think it is reasonable, yet at the same time one cannot simply ignore the overwhelming and specifically Jewish presence in every anti-Western Christendom social theory, political movement or cultural influence.
So to me, on "The Jewish Question" spectrum, I reject both extremes in favor of the middle. I think it is wise to be cognizant enough to recognize overall trends and agents that might pose a threat. At the same time a rational mind can only concede the obvious existence of the individual exceptions.
In the case of Gottfried, why in the world would any "paleo" movement reject one of it's most articulate and coherent voices simply because of inherited genes? Hell, what about Hoffman and Finkelstein? **
To a degree, Tex, I think you're pragmatism has a point. Generally, one would bet that a particular Jew would be liberal, (something that can be explained through a number of demographic realities). Yet these exceptions show that it's not some kind of ingrained trait as the "group" arguments imply.
As to Jewish involvement in "anti-Western" activity, that comes with their presence in all intellectual endeavors. They're involved on both the Right and the Left. Everyone makes an issue of Jews being involved with Communism, but they're also heavily involved in libertarian movements and were even disproportionately represented in the fascist movements. So as you have Jews present in the movements you don't like, they're also present in the movements you support.
The problem is, as you seem to recognize, when you start laying down dogmatic statements excluding groups like Jews, as many here do, you often wind up cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you took the arguments of most here seriously, you would have to exclude people like Gottfried.
Best, P
2002-12-24 01:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 23 2002, 23:59 ** > Instead of pursuing some "goal" wouldn't it be more reasonable in accord with Occam's razor to say that there are genuine differences of opinion that transcend your idea of a "group."
If there are differences of opinion, why would that invalidate the idea of a "group?" Is a general rule or pattern invalidated by a few deviations? Even the SPLC admits that such deviations are rare. **
The question isn't whether you can label someone a "group" or that someone can identify what they perceive of as "group interests." The question is, is it ingrained? Will they of their own accord pursue these "goals," or are they just misinformed and muddled like everybody else?
Best, P
2002-12-24 02:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 23 2002, 21:48 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 23 2002, 23:59 ** > Instead of pursuing some "goal" wouldn't it be more reasonable in accord with Occam's razor to say that there are genuine differences of opinion that transcend your idea of a "group."**
If there are differences of opinion, why would that invalidate the idea of a "group?" Is a general rule or pattern invalidated by a few deviations? Even the SPLC admits that such deviations are rare. **
The question isn't whether you can label someone a "group" or that someone can identify what they perceive of as "group interests." The question is, is it ingrained? Will they of their own accord pursue these "goals," or are they just misinformed and muddled like everybody else?
Best, P**
Murray and Herrnstein make a crucial point in The Bell Curve on the issue of whether behavioral patterns are "ingrained" (genetically) or more apt to be determined by the environment (whose influences can misinform and muddle the susceptible): it doesn't really matter.
M&H say that in this day and age, people find arguments about genetics threatening, but that threat is illusory since the environment also has its own constraints and arbitrariness and is just as difficult to change. The Left traditionally feels more comfortable with environmental explanations because they place their confidence in the power of the State to make changes to that environment and spread equality and fairness and all that.
2002-12-24 02:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 23 2002, 21:31 > Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 24 2002, 00:11 ** > If there are differences of opinion, why would that invalidate the idea of a "group?" Is a general rule or pattern invalidated by a few deviations? **
That's not quite the right question. Differences of opinion are not relevant, as there is plenty of room to disagree on how to achieve a common goal. A difference in the goal is what matters. **
But you're defining the group by the goal. Yet the Jews cited here do not, according to you, share in the goal and still identify themselves with the group.
Best, P**
The renegades may still identify with the group, but their brethren regard them as wayward. Their fellow Jews will cast them out. At the same time, the renegade Jews often tend to be viewed with suspicion by non-Jews because it's tactically impractical to call a "time-out" to any intergroup conflict and spend time separating the good trees from the overall thick forest, getting bogged down. Some may lament the way in which the Gottfrieds of the world might get caught in the proverbial crossfire, but such is life, and it's neither fair nor just. It just is. Make the best of it and hope things work out to favor your interests.
What about the "good" Japanese that were caught in the blast at Hiroshima? Revilo P. Oliver, one-time writer for the National Review before the decline of that publication, puts the matter best in America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative:
It is meaningless to talk of "injustice" to individuals. It is one of the simple facts of life on this planet that members of a race or nation must usually participate in the common fate of the group to which they belong. (p. 25)
2002-12-24 04:48 | User Profile
The problem is, as you seem to recognize, when you start laying down dogmatic statements excluding groups like Jews, as many here do, you often wind up cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you took the arguments of most here seriously, you would have to exclude people like Gottfried.
Which would be a laughably trivial price to pay.
But the question before we reach that point is whether he is working as part of the group to advance group goals. If not, he's not Jewish in any meaningful sense.
2002-12-24 05:09 | User Profile
But you're defining the group by the goal. Yet the Jews cited here do not, according to you, share in the goal and still identify themselves with the group.
Restate your comment without using the term "identify". You know better than that.
2002-12-24 05:42 | User Profile
**So to me, on "The Jewish Question" spectrum, I reject both extremes in favor of the middle. I think it is wise to be cognizant enough to recognize overall trends and agents that might pose a threat. At the same time a rational mind can only concede the obvious existence of the individual exceptions. **
That's one way of looking at it -- a straightforward exercise in linguistic descriptivism. The endeavor, however, is prescriptive -- to identify the essence of Jewish identity, to produce a useful understanding of the phenomenon, and to tie the essence to the word that is supposed to represent that essence.
To facilitate understanding of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, your "exceptions" are better characterized as non-Jews. If 1% of those claiming to be Jewish are not actually participating in the group strategy or if another 5% are peripherally or transitionally connected to the group, so what? It is useful for us (and almosty always correct) to presume that someone of Jewish ancestry identifies with the group. Anyone who is not inextricably linked to the group can, tautologically, extricate himself from the group and avoid the consequences of any actions directed at the group.
Those who consider themselves Jewish cannot agree on who is Jewish, and it is no criticism of MacDonald's theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy to point out that it is sometimes difficult to determine the precise boundaries of the group or to point out that Elazar's conceptualization of the Jewish community (itself discussed by MacDonald) includes a penumbra.
The Emancipation "complicated" the issue of Jewish identity, as Jews were theretofore, in general, physically separated from the gentile population and subject to an authoritarian community structure that could excommunicate those not committed to group goals. As a result of the Emancipation, some of those who call themselves Jews now argue about who is in fact a Jew.
[url=http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/studies_index.htm]http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/studies_index.htm[/url]
**America's Jews are divided, perhaps as never before, over a question that would surprise most other Americans who are not familiar with the Jewish heritage or the Jewish community in any way. That question is, quite simply: "Who is Jewish?" At a more subtle level, the questions asked are, "What does 'Jewish' mean?" and "Who gets to decide?" or "How are those who call themselves 'Jewish' or are labeled as such by others signify that identity or social status to themselves and others?" **
Given the changes resulting from the Emancipation, some of those who call themselves Jews may not (even subconsciously) hold traditional Jewish beliefs central to the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, thus complicating the discussion of Jews as a political force. Indeed, the apparent disagreement among Jewish factions lends credence to Jewish apologia that denies that Jews are a cohesive group. Still, despite some messy individualism and nonconformity on the fringes, the Jewish group evolutionary strategy appears to continue as before in the relevant senses. The fact that some self-defined Jews apparently do not possess the supreme group loyalty formerly required of all Jews does not augur the demise of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy or change the nature of the strategy as pursued by the remainder of self-identifying Jews.
In this regard, it is helpful to consider Elazar's ("Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry") post-Emancipation conceptualization of American Jewry as organized in concentric circles, with the most committed Jews at the core and lower levels of commitment represented in each successive circle as one moves outward from the center. While the outer circle is permeable, and converts will enter and less committed Jews will leave, the inner core always remains highly committed and endogamous, and the group evolutionary strategy continues despite the fact that on the periphery the group is less clearly defined than previously.
2002-12-24 08:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 23 2002, 23:42 ** Anyone who is not inextricably linked to the group can, tautologically, extricate himself from the group and avoid the consequences of any actions directed at the group. **
This is good to know, mwd. If they'll grant my ability to extricate myself from the greater group that includes White, Yankee liberals, then I'll certainly return the favor.
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
2002-12-24 21:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 24 2002, 02:13 ** The Left traditionally feels more comfortable with environmental explanations because they place their confidence in the power of the State to make changes to that environment and spread equality and fairness and all that. **
And you're more comfortable with the genetic factor because it let's you off the hook with all those heavy moral questions. You know, those things that have occupied the attention of Western Civilization for centuries.
Best, P
2002-12-24 21:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 24 2002, 04:48 ** > The problem is, as you seem to recognize, when you start laying down dogmatic statements excluding groups like Jews, as many here do, you often wind up cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you took the arguments of most here seriously, you would have to exclude people like Gottfried.
Which would be a laughably trivial price to pay. **
Oh, really? And you call yourself a libertarian?
Von Mises, Rothbard, Chodorov, even Rand--despite her errors. This isn't a trivial component by any reasonable standard.
Best, P
2002-12-24 21:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 24 2002, 05:09 ** > But you're defining the group by the goal. Yet the Jews cited here do not, according to you, share in the goal and still identify themselves with the group.
Restate your comment without using the term "identify". You know better than that. **
"They identify themselves as Jews" isn't clear? It seems so to me. They say, "I'm a Jew."
Best, P
2002-12-24 21:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 24 2002, 02:25 ** What about the "good" Japanese that were caught in the blast at Hiroshima? Revilo P. Oliver, one-time writer for the National Review before the decline of that publication, puts the matter best in America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative: **
The A-bombing of Hiroshima was a disgusting act, as were the firebombings of other civilian locations like Tokyo, Dresden and Kiel. As Toland and other historians have pointed out, the Russian declaration of war and the American concession to keep the Mikado on his throne convinced Japan to surrender. The bombings ultimately proved to be ineffective, even counterproductive, in that they steeled the resolve of the enemies' population. And yes, the Japanese and the Germans could be barbaric, too, in their use of airpower.
But the analogy fails anyways because you're not in a war, despite your ravings to the contrary. You're sitting peaceably at a computer, tippety-typing, which means you have time to formulate a civilized approach to problems.
Best, P
2002-12-25 19:33 | User Profile
But the analogy fails anyways because you're not in a war, despite your ravings to the contrary. You're sitting peaceably at a computer, tippety-typing, which means you have time to formulate a civilized approach to problems.
We are ALL of us tippety-typing here; both brave, selfless fighters for the "American idea" like yourself, and us cowardly, delusional Hate Merchants. But we're all of us looking out of a porthole on the Titanic, too, watching that big white thing getting bigger and bigger, faster and faster. You're playing semantic games here, viz, an inevitable disaster equals no disaster is presently occurring * equals no cause for alarm*.
PS: our military is in dozens of countries, we just finished an operation in Afghanistan while we've been continuing to quietly assault Iraq as we have been for a decade now, and that's not to mention the Sudan, Yugoslavia, and other ventures we refer to with declawed sobriquets like 'nation-building' or 'fighting terrorism', but which the people being 'helped' refer to as "INCOMING!!" And all of it done in my [and our] name, without anybody asking me first for permission. We sure as sht are in a war, several of them: ask any of the millions of people who've learned to hate America by looking up into their sky and seeing our* F-16s. That hate is just one more iceberg in the distance that guys like you keep insisting is too far away to warrant preparing against right now.
2002-12-26 17:11 | User Profile
We are ALL of us tippety-typing here;
That's right.
both brave, selfless fighters for the "American idea" like yourself, and us cowardly, delusional Hate Merchants.
I don't consider myself selfless. I find you guys highly entertaining. A barrel of monkeys.
But we're all of us looking out of a porthole on the Titanic, too, watching that big white thing getting bigger and bigger, faster and faster. You're playing semantic games here, viz, an inevitable disaster equals no disaster is presently occurring * equals no cause for alarm*.
No disaster is "inevitable," Chicken Little. If we were on the Titanic, what you and the other screamers would have us do is turn up full steam and drive towards another iceberg.
PS: our military is in dozens of countries, we just finished an operation in Afghanistan while we've been continuing to quietly assault Iraq as we have been for a decade now, and that's not to mention the Sudan, Yugoslavia, and other ventures we refer to with declawed sobriquets like 'nation-building' or 'fighting terrorism', but which the people being 'helped' refer to as "INCOMING!!" And all of it done in my [and our] name, without anybody asking me first for permission. We sure as sht are in a war, several of them: ask any of the millions of people who've learned to hate America by looking up into their sky and seeing our* F-16s. That hate is just one more iceberg in the distance that guys like you keep insisting is too far away to warrant preparing against right now.
Yep, pretty stupid foreign policy, but that ain't what Paul was talking about, really. Even so, the mess we're in is certainly not a war in the sense World War II was, no matter how much you and the neocons might want to believe it is.
Best, P
2002-12-26 19:19 | User Profile
[color=yellow][SIZE=4]Yellow Polichinello[/color][/SIZE]
**The A-bombing of Hiroshima was a disgusting act, as were the firebombings of other civilian locations like Tokyo, Dresden and Kiel. As Toland and other historians have pointed out, the Russian declaration of war and the American concession to keep the Mikado on his throne convinced Japan to surrender. The bombings ultimately proved to be ineffective, even counterproductive, in that they steeled the resolve of the enemies' population. And yes, the Japanese and the Germans could be barbaric, too, in their use of airpower.
But the analogy fails anyways because you're not in a war, despite your ravings to the contrary. You're sitting peaceably at a computer, tippety-typing, which means you have time to formulate a civilized approach to problems. **
The dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not disgusting acts for those who would have to suffer the consequences of invading the Japanese homeland. I am aware that you regard no member of this forum approaching you in righteousness and probity. The battle of Okinawa was brutal for those who fought it. The United States had a fire power advantage there probably never matched in the history of warfare. Yet we lost well over 10,000 men. The duty of these men was to kill Japanese, not to make you feel better.
You should remember the great butcher of World War II was not Hitler, but Hirohito. The "barbaric" bombs did stop the Japanese depradation in China. I just wish you had been shot at once in your skulking life.
2002-12-26 20:20 | User Profile
I am aware that you regard no member of this forum approaching you in righteousness and probity.
Even if I did, save a for a few people here, it woudn't be much of an accomplishment.
The battle of Okinawa was brutal for those who fought it. The United States had a fire power advantage there probably never matched in the history of warfare. Yet we lost well over 10,000 men. The duty of these men was to kill Japanese, not to make you feel better.
I'm not talking about those men, Dick, am I? I'm talking about the people in Washington. The invasion of Honshu was not pre-empted by the atom bomb. It was pre-empted by the Russian entry into the Pacific war and the American concession to keep the Japanese emporer on the throne.
You should remember the great butcher of World War II was not Hitler, but Hirohito.
Yeah, I agree with that. Hirohito was a monster. I saw the scars of some of his troops' handiwork in the Pacific. That still doesn't justify massacring civilians. And that goes for Germans as well as Japanese, BTW.
And remember those same wonderful people who authorized the bomb were the same guys who made the backroom deals to keep Hirohito on his throne.
The "barbaric" bombs did stop the Japanese depradation in China.
No, the Russian invasion of Manchuria stopped that. The Russian entry into the war was what finally convinced the Japanese war party that their cause was hopeless.
I just wish you had been shot at once in your skulking life.
As a matter of fact, Dick, I was shot at. In Angeles City outside of Clark AB, during a terrorist attack. Does that makes you feel any better? I was also under the scuds in Dharhan and Riyadh several times while taxiing in a C-141 full of gas and munitions.
If you want to impugn my bona fides, Dick, you can kindly kiss my ass. I did my bit for flag and country, and I didn't need to be drafted to do it.
Best, P
2002-12-26 20:40 | User Profile
[SIZE=4][color=yellow]Yellow Polichinello[/color][/SIZE]
You wrote:
**No, the Russian invasion of Manchuria stopped that. The Russian entry into the war was what finally convinced the Japanese war party that their cause was hopeless. **
If you ever decide to try to pass yourself off as someone who knows something worthwhile, you should read my book. The great Russian offensive started after the Japanese surrendered.
You also wrote:> **And remember those same wonderful people who authorized the bomb were the same guys who made the backroom deals to keep Hirohito on his throne. **
The only reason you know this is that you have read my previous postings.
I'm not talking about those men, Dick, am I?
Elsewhere I ask that you not address in such a familiar matter. I have not been, am not, and have no intention of being your friend.
**As a matter of fact, Dick, I was shot at. In Angeles City outside of Clark AB, during a terrorist attack. Does that makes you feel any better? I was also under the scuds in Dharhan and Riyadh several times while taxiing in a C-141 full of gas and munitions. **
Well Filipinos cannot shoot well, but they can steal. I do not feel any better, but I suspect you may be exaggerating.
**> ** I am aware that you regard no member of this forum approaching you in righteousness and probity. **
Even if I did, save a for a few people here, it woudn't be much of an accomplishment. **
Please be more specific as your lying and rabinical distinctions are starting to weary people. You may not be beyond redemption, but others will have to try. I tire easily and harbor unkind feelings. Your declaration of moral superiority should impress those who read these messages with your inability to reason or confront harsh realities.
2002-12-26 21:56 | User Profile
If you ever decide to try to pass yourself off as someone who knows something worthwhile, you should read my book. The great Russian offensive started after the Japanese surrendered.
The Russian invasion began on 8 August coincidental with their declaration of war. The surrender was on 14 August (officially, 15 August is V-J Day). [url=http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/timeline.htm]http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/p...ar/timeline.htm[/url] [url=http://www.qt.org/worldwar/timeline/]http://www.qt.org/worldwar/timeline/[/url]
If you want to pick nits, the main force didn't really get going until after the surrender, but then again, I doubt the Mikado's solidiers began playing nice just because of the surrender, something which many of them didn't hear about for sometime.
As to getting your book, my tax-dollars are already supporting enough charity cases, so I really don't need to take on one more.
> ** And remember those same wonderful people who authorized the bomb were the same guys who made the backroom deals to keep Hirohito on his throne. ** The only reason you know this is that you have read my previous postings.
Ha! Believe it not, Dick, there are other historians out there who have covered this turf. I've known about this for quite some time, as far back as Edward Behr's biography of Hirohito, which came out about the time the old bastard headed for hell. In fact, I got stuck at Yakota AB when he died in '89. V. inconvenient.
Elsewhere I ask that you not address in such a familiar matter. I have not been, am not, and have no intention of being your friend.
Ah, that hurts. It really does. Dick.
Well Filipinos cannot shoot well, but they can steal.
Talk about ungraciousness. The Filipinos remained loyal to us throughout the WWII and suffered grievously as a result of it. They were the only Asian colony to have an effective resistance against the Japanese. You should read Lieutenant Ramsey's War before you make a Dick out of yourself again, Dick.
I do not feel any better, but I suspect you may be exaggerating.
My imagination's far better than one shooting and some falling scuds.
I tire easily and harbor unkind feelings.
There's a revelation.
Your declaration of moral superiority should impress those who read these messages with your inability to reason or confront harsh realities.
Just taking them at their word. They've gone at length telling me how they don't mind lying from their own kind; and think it's somehow justifiable to suspend normal morality when dealing with others they consider to be lesser beings.
Best, P