Woody, I'm putting you in for a Pulitzer..... GREAT reporting on the nefarious knuckle dragging neanderthals at GITMO.... we gotta put a stop to this, or at least get them to play hip hop instead of CA.

Posted by GM Roper at June 12, 2005 02:13 PM

GM, I just noticed the new statement on the banner at the top of the page, "...A Ton Of Liberals or One Michael Moore." What's the difference? Is that the point?

Posted by Woody at June 12, 2005 02:31 PM

That is the point indeed!

Posted by GM Roper at June 12, 2005 04:48 PM

Not embarrased to say I still have issues regarding Guantanamo, but after just rereading `Papillion (and watching the movie again last night), it's cleary a matter of perspective.

Having said that, I would have no problem ordering Woody and GM to view `Farenheit 9/11 against their will.

Now, back to baseball.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 12, 2005 05:17 PM

Jim, I saw Moore's pseudodocumentary of my own volition. A more fanciful rendition of the truth cannot be imagined. It should have won an oscar for best science fiction/comedy. ;-)

Posted by GM Roper at June 12, 2005 05:43 PM

An extreme left-wing friend of mine wanted me to see 911 so much that he offered to buy my tickets. I told him that the only way I could consider going would be if Michael Moore didn't make anything off of me--which meant that I would have to go to a multi-screen cinema, buy a ticket for "The Passion of the Christ," and then go to the theater with Moore's film. However, that wasn't honest, so I asked WWJD. The answer was that Jesus wouldn't go to see Michael Moore's film under any circumstances--so, I refused the offer and never watched it.

Posted by Woody at June 12, 2005 07:11 PM

Nice picture. Didn't I see you in "Hunt for Red October?"

Posted by Woody at June 12, 2005 08:36 PM

No, but I had a supporting role in "The Hunt for Gray November." ;-)

Posted by GM Roper at June 12, 2005 08:50 PM

On a tangental note, I happened to be watching a program this weekend which was dealing with the response after the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour. The announcer made the offhand comment that having captured a Japanese serviceman, it was considered neccessary to obtian whatever information he possessed as soon as possible 'by whatever means required'. And this seemed perfectly natural in the context of the times.

If we had the same attitudes we have today, what are the chances Imperial Japan would have been defeated in 4 years ? Well let's go a bridge further--- Would Japan have been defeated at all ? I frankly don't see how, but what do I know.

A nation that is unwilling or unable to protect itself must depend upon someone else to defend it. Do you happen to see a line-up of 'friends' around the world just desperate to defend your interests and your lives ? Just asking.

Sometimes,I have the sneaking suspicion that if this historical era is somewhat analogous to ancient Rome, we are well into the 'FALL' period.

Kind of sad, really.

Posted by dougf at June 13, 2005 10:07 AM

GM, are you saying that the `My Pet Goat' segment showing a dumfounded CIC stunned into inaction reminded you of `The Invasion of The Body Snatchers'? Wow, I had the same thought.

Doug, you're brain mumbling. Read some more history of WWII and you'll find find we had our best results in obtaining information from Japanese prisoners who
were shocked into disbelief at how humanely they were treated, contrary to every thing they had been led to expect.

WHat you seem to be longing for is more akin to the Japanese mindset of treating Allied prisoners.
Well, we all know how THAT turned out.

Of course, the treatment of prisoners had very little to do with the winning of the war. That had more to do with breaking their codes and our taking out of the Japanese aircraft carriers. What the Japanese treatment of our guys did was make us very, very angry, and helped give us the will to win...in effect, the Japanese ignored the law of unexpected consequences.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 13, 2005 06:30 PM

Jim, I assume that you are addressing your post to Woody since he is the one who wrote this post.

However, you should also admit that the Gitmo prisoners are treated far, far, far better than any allied soldier or westerner caught by the islamofascists are. We even treat them better than they have available in their native land.

At Gitmo, they have freedom of Religion, not something accorded to Saudi Allies stationed in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I or at present.

At Gitmo, they have three squares and medical care at anytime they need it, and I doubt that would be the case of a prisoner of the islamofascists.

My paternal Grandfather was a prisoner of the Japanese during WWII, I concur regarding the differences between how our respective prisoners were treated. Even the Germans captured and held in US POW camps said the same thing following WWII.

Posted by GM Roper at June 13, 2005 06:37 PM

Wasn't arguing about Gitmo at all, GM...I agree you're second paragraph.

What I was arguing was Doug's inference that to best the enemy, we have to become the enemy. And that our failure to torture somehow makes us weaker. That's just crazy.

Where was your Grandad held?

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 13, 2005 06:53 PM

"What I was arguing was Doug's inference that to best the enemy, we have to become the enemy. And that our failure to torture somehow makes us weaker. That's just crazy."--Jim

Well I must confess that my comment was subject to multiple interpretation(due to poor choice of example possibly) so I can't really object to your conclusions as to my intent.Didn't overly care for the perjorative 'longing' bit ,but I have said worse.

But you are mistaken on at least two levels.

Firstly I was not arguing that we need to resort to torture in order to win . For many reasons the use of 'torture' as a policy always leads to the worst possible consequences and not to the success its proponents somehow feel is just around the corner.

That said however, the arguement that force should be used to extract information is a triffle more nuanced than 'that's just crazy.'

But my real point was that fighting WW2 in today's media and cultural climate, would not necessarily have resulted in victory over a ruthless and powerful opponent.If the jihadis and the thuggish Baathist clans can play the media like a violin,and if the base assumption among the information system ,and the effete elites, is that the US military is somehow WRONG as a default position, how would the US have been able to fight a 4 year conflict in which thousands of deaths a day was hardly an abnormal situation,and in which brutality was an everyday event ?

Long story short---- if WW2 broke out TODAY and the media continued as it is TODAY, the end result would be greatly in doubt. There is a reason why 'PROPAGANDA' is a steady feature of all conflicts. No-one really wants to fight,and the object of 'good' information is to ensure that morale is not undermined by the struggle itself. I don't see that as the way things operate today. NOT AT ALL.

War is not only a physical struggle; it is primarily a struggle of WILL. Negativity, all things being equal, will lead to defeat each and every time. And the constant navel gazing about treatment of 'probable' enemy combatants is objectively NEGATIVE. A little proportion might go a long way here , or would if there was an interest in some quarters in actually WINNING.

Posted by dougf at June 13, 2005 07:23 PM

Jim, Grandad was a Major assigned to lead a group of Phillapine Scouts (Horse Mounted) and Arrived in June or July, 1941 on the Island of Mindanao. He was held in Bilibid Prison for almost the entire war and was scheduled for shipment to Japan but was deemed to ill to go. Fortunately as it turned out.

Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, POW ships are given a precise location in a convoy so that they won't be sunk by the other sides subs. The Japanese routinely violated that dictum and placed their own wounded in ships in that position. The ship that granddad was to have been on, was sunk by an american sub with almost all hands lost.

This book http://tinyurl.com/c4sj5 details the escape (from that very ship) of (later) General John McGee a co prisoner of Granddads and his friend. An old book (1962?)it was published just before Granddad died.

Posted by GM Roper at June 13, 2005 09:07 PM

Doug, I understand the point you're trying to make, even though I largely disagree with you conclusion that seems to infer (sorry if I keep doing that to you) that if it were not for the machinations of Al Jazeera and `effete elites' (care to decipher that last one? I'm not too up on my Limbaugh/Coulter type buzzwords?) the 60% or so who believe the war in Iraq was mistake would fall back in line with Bush.

Fully understand the use and effectivenss of propaganda. I'm not arguing against it. But saying that information in this country should be limited
to any particular slant bothers the hell out of me. A free and open interchange of ideas is what makes us so different from the Nazis and the USSR...not to mention the islamofascists.

During the Revolutionary War, the Tory press WAS the MSM. Anti King George sentiment was dissementated via pamphlets, fercryinoutloud. Did the Tory press affect our will to fight? Well, not in the end. Sometimes you just have to trust people to make up their own minds.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 13, 2005 10:38 PM