Limbaugh mocks Wikileaks' exposure of civilian deaths: "In the old days, the definition of winning a war was killing people"
July 26, 2010 12:57 pm ET
From the July 26 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
How would this fat POS know what war was like "in the old days"?
He's not speaking from personal experience. Anything else is movie and TV experience.
This is why we can't "win" the Iraq or Afghan wars. There's no one person who will tell all those terrorists/insurgents to "stop." There's no one person they'll listen to-THERE IS NO WINNING, but as long as our people are there dying, and as long as we're tanking our economy by fighting there, we're losing.
They just hate Muslims and hate Arabs. So as long as we're over there killing someone - ANYONE - that's fine with them. Allies, enemies, insurgents, civilians... They don't have to sweat the details, becuase "kill as many musilms as possible" is what they think the Bush doctrine really was. (I'm almost surprised Palin didn't just go with that when asked about it!)
About the only thing you can ever trip them up on is to point out that we're over there actually PREVENTING a Musilm civil war, both in Iraq and in Afganistan, that might spill over into other countries... and that this would kill FAR MORE Muslims and Arabs than we're even trying to.
About the best thay can do to answer THAT is to mutter something about "terrorism," and yet STILL not be able to concede the point you're making! (They might wonder why you hate America though.)
---------------------------------------------
If these people ever tried thinking for themselves, sales of ibuprofen would skyrocket.
And only a hateful, amoral sack of sh!t would ever speak of "killing people" with so little mindfulness about the meaning of the death of a human person.
Afghanistan is nothing like WWII... the "War on Terror" is nothing like WWII. The differences are so obvious that only disingenuous Propagandists and their willfully ignorant sycophants fail to see them.
Based upon what, pray tell?
#2: As compared to our government which has always been fully transparent with is citizens and has always dispensed reliable information?
Look: we are aware of the many astoundingly dumb things you say; there's no need to keep adding to your archive.
And why is this particular story false?
The thing is, with the distance of time, there are military analysts who question whether those actions actually shortened the war.
It's relatively noncontroversial to condemn the bombing of London and Dresden now, but some still cling to the opinion that vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was absolutely necessary. Not all historians agree. Most of these doubters believe the Atomic bombs were set off to intimidate the Soviets, and that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the Bomb. Historians disagree.
Just google "Was Hiroshima Necessary" and you can see the arguments.
The GWOT is as much a battle for hearts and minds as for tactical military victories. Killing the family and friends of those we are trying to convince is self-defeating.
In Afghanistan, as you point out, we're trying to establish a working central government. Such a government has no hope of succeeding without the support of the people and local leaders. You don't win such support by randomly killing civilians.
Now, if you believe my Grandfather, he was happy that we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, for the one simple reason that he was getitng ready to board a troop ship to head off to invade Japan, and after invading Europe, and surviving, he wasn't really thrilled with the idea of doing it again in Japan. Doesn't matter to him if Japan was going to surrender or not before dropping the A bombs over there, he just knew that because of it, he, and his battle buddies were done fighting. And pretty happy about it.
In that respect, I think Hiroshima can be justified, Nagasaki less so.
Dresden, I think, cannot be justified. I really don't think it hastened the end of the war by one day. Hitler was determined to fight to the last German.
Dresden though, totally useless unless we count it in terms of terror weapons against the general populace, who were experiencing war fatigue themselves.
I agree about Dresden. Little if any strategic reason for it. There were other targets which would have been more desirable militarily.
The only good thing to come of it was "Slaughterhouse Five"
War is a horrific undertaking, pitting two groups of people against each other until one side is utterly obliterated. Usually it does not go that far, and one side surrenders. Still, it is well to remember that the horror of war itself is the reason why sane men argue that it should be the very last resort. It is proof of lack of ability to understand this simple truth that so easily highlights chickenhawks like Rush, Cheney, Dumbya, et al.
I don't know about you, but is someone invaded n me country, and killing thousands of innocents. I would be calling for arms against them, to make them stop.
Rush explained that by destroying the will of the populace to support their allies war effort, like the Germans with London and the US in Dresden & Japan, where civilian population was targeted. He wasn't advocating 'targeting' civilians in this new era, but that this could be an end around by the obama administration regarding General Petraeus's discussion of possible changing of the rules of engagement. You know the ones that are putting our soldiers at undo risk.
Who said they were? How was the idea supported?
Describe the targetted populace we can bomb back to the stone age. Where do they hang? What amount of civilian death is aceptable to you fearful neocons?
WWII veterans would no doubt appreciate the decorated war hero General Limbaugh's tribute to the character of the American soldier.
It may have worked in Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was probably not necessary.
Blimpy's full of sh*t, as usual.
I understand that you win wars by making war undesirable for your enemies. I hope you can explain your position to the people of Georgia so that they understand.
You have no credibility here.
Liar. You yourself said you are a, quote, "bone doctor", liar. Or are you getting your personalities mixed up again?
Yes, you did. You said you were an "orthopedist." An Orthopedist is a physician. You said you got your degree in "Orthopedics." When pressed, you said you were a Physician's Assistant, a position which doesn't necessarily require a degree, but usually carries a MUCH larger salary than $50,000.00 year which is what you claimed at one point.
I might add that you've forgotten to use "teh stupid" in your post today. Careful, it's a dead giveaway that you are, in fact, just a sock puppet used by other folks.
Oh, and I'm gainfully employed and have been for many, many years.
Last post from me, squawks.
What makes you think that we don't have jobs anyway? I never understood this line of reasoning from you, or from anyone. I don't think there are many folks on here unemployed. Or is receiving welfare.
It ended when we took Berlin in Europe, along with help from the Soviets.
It ended in Japan, yes, when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That wasn't a motto, that's a movie quote from Patton. Try again.
You don't really understand asymmetric warfare very well do you? Or anti insurgency actions? Where, taking out houses with civilians AND terrorists is counter to what we're trying to do. Yes, it happens, but the point is, is that it happens too often.
Take out those houses and maybe they will stop doing that, but if they don't oh well.
After all, they're just brown people. Nobody will miss them, right?
George Patton. By contrast with the actual oaths that the military takes.