Patriotism isn't a laughing matter

Actually, nobody's been able to LOCATE him, much less extricate him. As far as lobbing bombs on Pakistan, remember, they have nuclear weapons now, not fifty years from now, as does India.

How about giving Pez Mujaraff seventy-two hours to produce bin Laden or his fifteen minutes of fame are up? Promise we'll get him into the Witness Protection Program with his own Krispy Kreme franchise.

Nothing is to be gained by continually rehashing Truman's decision to use the bomb. Most Americans had family members in the service and approved his action. The next president, however, may face a similar dilemma.
Osama bin Laden, and his top staff, are holed up somewhere in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nobody has been able to extricate him using conventional methods. He continues to orchestrate death and destruction throughout the world. A well placed nuclear bomb would completely eradicate Osama, as well as everybody, and anything around him. The region is sparsely populated so the death toll would not equal the same level of suffering endured by the Japanese. Should the new president authorize such action? I think I might, if I were president, but gosh who can possibly foretell the consequences?

And in their own words, as you can read here if you have the stomach to go back for them, GrinchforPrez and Ross Balano HAVE advocated killing infants. Now we can get all lawyer-y and try to find the exact words: "advocate?" "Accept?" "Authorize as a regrettable necessity?" And if you are in fact a combat vet, you're certainly aware that there are enemies out there who can and do tie explosives to small children and send them out to greet the soldiers. And collateral damage is collateral damage. But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I recall that Westmoreland put out a general order in Viet Nam to kill all children on sight, since we lost a guy up north because a kid handed him an explosive "present-o." Perhaps Westmoreland really didn't have the will to win the war, after all.

(I was going to quit this thread but Alma K. has inspired me)

Lady, I am a combat vet, and you are an idiot. No one advocates killing infants, and you know that, just as the "sore on the butt of mankind" does.

Let me furhter assure you that a six year old can kill you just as dead as a twenty year old. I have seen it happen. The deaths of innocents occurs it war as well, I have seen that too.

However to criticize any warrior who simply desires to stay alive, and kill his enemies because of these happenstance, is as I said idiotic.

Those of you, in the blame America first crowd, as Alma no doubt is, truly dishonor the folks who have fought to defend you.

I'm so glad you clarified that, GrinchforPrez. Since some children in Japan were trained in the deadly arts of spoon fu and tae kwon pablum, all Japanese children, down to suckling babes, are fair game. It may surprise you that all Britons, even those who lost loved ones in WWII, aren't enthusiastic supporters of murdering the enemy's babies. (Incidentally, the Japanese never attacked London, that was the other guys.) And your suggestion that the British couldn't distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in that war is the smoking gun that convinces me that you are, in fact, as much of a self-taught dimwit as Balano. Moreover, it appears that you, too, have Balano's Disease: "I would have unhesitatingly killed..." No, you wouldn't. You're one more trash-talking non-combatant who couldn't pull a trigger in combat with a note from your Mommy and the active encouragement of your sister Sue.

Pilano: you really are as dumb as I suspected. You completely misunderstood my post. Not only that, but you paint me as the 'loony right', which I first though was an insult but later realized it was a badge of honor since cretins like you identify anyone that way who's to the right of Mao Tse Tung.

Here's what I did say:

"I would have killed every single Japanese combatant, military or civilian, if that's what it would have taken to end World War II."

Your ignorance of history shines very brightly, since the Japanese civilians, even to the level of CHILDREN, were trained during WWII to defend their homeland with their lives. Considering this, as I did, the entire population of Japan was fair game - there's absolutely nothing people could do to protect the truly innocent during wartime, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a monumental fool. Ask the British whose babies and children were blown apart and burned alive in the V-rocket Nazi attacks - in fact, ask anyone involved in that war if only actual combatants could possibly have been targeted or even distinguished.

Let me be blunt - if you told me that 20,000 babies and children would be killed if I had dropped the bomb on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and I knew beforehand that my government had taken all measures to keep that from happening by trying to convince the Japanese to surrender (who killed over 5,000 of their own pilots by forcing them to engage in kamikaze attacks, which demonstrated to the Americans just how far the Japanese would go to defend their homeland), then I would not have hesitated in dropping the bomb.

To be clear: given the above circumstances, with the Japanese government knowingly refusing to surrender, I would have unhesitatingly killed thousands of innocent people WHETHER THEY WERE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN WAR OR NOT, in order to save hundreds of thousands of American lives.

Have you got that yet? So don't use me as some kind of justification to attack Ross.

"If we would have had to kill every Japanese person to win that war then so be it."

Even GrinchforPrez, as much of a loon as he is, had to insert "combatant" into his post. War Wimp Balano doesn't draw the line at noncombatants, he's willing to have the people who do the fighting kill EVERYBODY. You want to defend this skunk, fine. You want to admit there's limits to all this "Let the Eagle Scream!" rhetoric, that'd be lots better. Because you know it's all talk-sackless wonders like Balano can't do the job themselves, they have to hand the job off to people who don't widdle down their legs when it's time to sign up and swear in.

Does not imply "genocide, or baby killing" you lunatic, those are your terms. Neither Mr. Balano, or President Truman used those words, you did. Because you assume anyone who defends this great nation is just a natural born "baby killer" (your words) and is in favor of genocide (your word again).

The people my guys helped were not the enemy. When we saw anyone we determined a threat we did not hesitate to act. You cannot afford to, and sometimes sore on the butt of mankind, bystanders get hurt or killed. Such is the nature of combat.

I will drop off this thread now because speaking to you is like talking to a brick wall. But I will leave you with this. Maybe it will do you some good, but I doubt it.

http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh289/Impish_Dragon/?action=view&current=Untitled.flv

Rogue, this isn't up to your usual. My complaint was that BALANO said that the military could and should deliberately target non-combatants. He didn't say, "combatants," he said "all the population." You say you served? Do you recall being trained to make war on women and children? I don't.
"Not one time in my service did I ever see anything but compassion for women and childer caught up in conflicts. I have seen our guys give up half their rations, after not eating for days to starving mothers and kids, and they did it without thinking twice." Balano says that's unpatriotic. They "support the enemy," and are our legitimate targets. He didn't say, "every last terrorist," he said "every Japanese person." Not collateral damage, "every."

Read what I said (and what he said-it's still archived). You're defending a coward who's pissing on your honor, and I doubt that was your intention.

Sore on the butt of mankind, you sicken me. I served two tours, and left part of me on a battlefield.

You imply that the men and womne serving this country in uniform deliberately target non-combatant? You malign Mr. Balano for stating that killing all the enemy in a war is an evil objective?

As I said in an earlier post, because of people like you who see evil in every armed action we are involved in, we now hold back our fire power at the cost of our troops. Not one time in my service did I ever see anything but compassion for women and childer caught up in conflicts. I have seen our guys give up half their rations, after not eating for days to starving mothers and kids, and they did it without thinking twice.

To condemn Mr. Balano, or anyone who says if "it means we have to kill every last terrorist, so be it", is simply stupid and short sighted.

"Innocent peolple" get killed in a war, true, but innocent people, including women and children were killed 9/11/2001. We didn't start this crap, but we damn sure will finish it.

You can stop calling names now, and slink away somewhere else to condemn those who defend you, and your complete right to make an absolute ass of yourself.

Thank you. I had a feeling that even the loony right wouldn't be able to stomach that fool Balano's wimpy nonsense about killing noncombatants. Rambo Balano may be able to impress some bimbo in a bar up N. Oak Trafficway bragging about how he'd kill every woman, child, and cripple in a wheelchair to preserve Our Way of Life, but he goes way over the line implying that everyone who actually served in the military would agree with him, and that any REAL patriot would do the same.

Notice that the simpering sissy never would admit that he didn't have the chestnuts to do it himself, but would hand off the job to someone who could hold a gun without his hand trembling. Ghod, I hate artificial tough guys.

The next set of questions for Homo Erectus Balano would have been tougher: if he were ready to personally go over and murder nine-year-olds who "supported" terrorism, was he ready to start here? Was he planning to take his racial cleansing to the streets of Kansas City and start taking out their kids before they could grow up and harm his wife and children? I mean, he's already been stupid enough to give me a screen shot of his open support of genocide, maybe he's stupid enough to tell the world he's ready for some preemptive strikes against anchor babies and pregnant illegales?

Pilino: first, you should be embarrassed that you are too stupid to spell-check your miserable entries before you post them. But, given your obvious lack of intelligence, I'm not surprised.

To answer the following stupid question of yours:

"Actualy, Balano, you said explicitly that you would have murdered the entire Japanese people to end World War II. As a babykiller, would you have been prepared to kill them yourself, or would you have delegated the job to someone else, so that their souls could have burned in hell rather than yours?"

Regardless of what Ross actually said (and not 'actualy', since there are TWO l's 'in actually'), here's my answer:

I would have killed every single Japanese combatant, military or civilian, if that's what it would have taken to end World War II. I would have used guns, bombs, napalm, and nuclear weapons given the absolute disregard the Japanese showed for their OWN lives in their devastating series of kamikaze attacks, which were far more horrific than people might think. America did not cause Pearl Harbor - the Japanese aligned themselves with a monster like Hitler, they committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese, American prisoners of war and other Asians, and convinced American authorities that they would not give up their homeland without hundreds of thousands of American causalities, even if it meant that Japanese civilians would fight - and you're too damn dumb to exist if you think they didn't plan exactly that (they did). Faced with the possible loss of up to another half million American lives lost in invading the Japan homeland, Truman (a Democrat, lol - no Republican ever dropped the Bomb) made the correct decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and Nagasaki was bombed precisely because Japan refused to surrender even in the face of the obliteration of Hiroshima, which of course proves the point of their ferocious resistance at all costs to the invasion of their motherland.

Wikipedia quotes ...

Hiroshima: "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops."

Nagasaki: "The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

These were legitimate targets, and the Japanese culture completely blurred the line between civilian and military with their Shintoism ideals ("the roots of the movement are obscure, but it eventually developed into the idea that Japan, unlike other countries, was uniquely fathered by the god Izanami, whose consort, the goddess Izanagi, gave birth to the Japanese islands ... consequently the concept evolved that Japanese people are divine and superior to other humans, In one form of the religion, State Shintoism, the Japanese emperors were seen as infallible descendants of the gods." - http://www.experiencefestival.com/shintoism). In this idealism, civilians were expected to fight to the death to protect their homeland, even if armed with only pitchforks and hoes.

Fortunately, they did surrender at last, as no one in their right mind would prefer to wipe out an entire people - but these people had taken extraordinary measures against us, had proven that they were not only incredibly callous but had wiped out thousands upon thousands of innocent Chinese civilians and committed heinous war crimes against humanity on the same par as the Nazis (unit 731 - here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731).

Odd, but I don't hear the Japanese begging for forgiveness for their crimes against mankind during that war - why is that? No, it's easier to blame America for dropping 2 bombs that forced the end of the war and saved hundreds of thousands of American lives that would have been lost invading their homeland. And if the Japanese had still refused to surrender, I personally would have had no problem continuing to destroy every one of their cities until they did - and if they didn't, then I would have destroyed as many as necessary to make their defeat certain.

Tough - too bad - next time, don't attack an American base without warning or declaration of war and kill thousands of our citizens. For those of you utter cretins who think it immoral to kill a hundred thousand people with one bomb but seem to think it's okay for Saddam Hussein to have killed many more than that with conventional weapons - you're as dumb as they come and you should not reproduce.

The question you dodge like you dodged your duty to serve your country:
Are you up for killing women and children yourself, or do you wet yourself at the thought they might shoot back?

You have insulted every American who ever served honorably under the flag of their country by suggesting that an American fighting man or woman would deliberately murder noncombatants. You have insulted every American who considers themselves a patriot by stating directly that anyone who participates in genocide is more patriotic than someone who refuses. Look around you, coward, and see how many "real" Americans-conservatives, military, McCain supporters, gun rights advocates-have rushed forward to stand with you in your war against women and children.
You finally got one thing right. Calling you "finocchio" (you can't even spell it right) is demeaning to every gay man and woman who've served their country honorably, because it raises you up to their level. When I find a phrase in Italian that means "limp-wristed coward with a big mouth who threatens women and children," I'll pass it on.

Just so you’ll know, I only kept this going so you would continue to show your colors.

As expected, a constant stream of insults and name calling laced with anti-Americanism and hate.

Fennel, you called me fennel. That's what finoccio really means in Italian, but you knew that didn't you? Unless.....you are using its other meaning; the derogatory one sometimes used to describe a homosexual. The best way that translates is “f*gg*t.” I wonder how your gay friends would feel if they knew you go around calling people you don’t like f*gg*ts.

Good luck drinking with the veterans. It’s a good thing you hide behind that silly screen name so they won’t know how you really feel about the country they fought to defend. I don’t think they would be so inclined to drink with you if they knew that you put the lives of the enemy at higher value than those of our own troops.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

"If we would have had to kill every Japanese person to win that war then so be it." Followed by today's howler, "That is how war works." What's your knowledge of how war works, Rambo? First-hand experience? A book you read? ANSWER THE QUESTION-you got the cogliones to pull the trigger yourself, or don't you think you can bring down one of those sneaky little raghead rock-throwers?
Why don't you get your nephew in here for a guest editorial of how he's been taught to clear-cut civilian populations, if they're "enemy supporters"? HOW ARE BABIES "ENEMY SUPPORTERS," TOUGH GUY? HOW ARE NINE-YEAR-OLD GIRLS AND PREGNANT WOMEN "ENEMY SUPPORTERS?

Notice how quiet it is in here, finocchio? You're all by yourself on this one.

Have a nice Fourth of July. I intend to spend part of it drinking beer with friends, who're actual veterans.

The purpose of our military is to defend our country, its people and our way of life. Those who would seek to destroy those things and bring war upon us should be prepared to suffer the consequences. That is how war works. Eventually the stronger or more determined side wins. What happened in Japan in 1945 is a war action not an act of genocide. It was something intended to save American lives. Anyone who isn’t anti-American knows that. If your son or daughter was on the line, how many of the enemy supporters would you rather see dead instead or your own offspring. One, two, twenty, a hundred or many thousands? Something tells me that if something or someone you actually cared about was in danger, your feelings about saving them might be closer to mine than you’d care to admit.

And again with the baby killer accusation? This from someone who would defend the daily murdering of hundreds of unborn babies and simply call it “a choice.” You must be kidding! You mourn the deaths of those who seek to destroy us yet condone, even defend the slaughter of the most innocent lives, the unborn.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

Here's the quote, Rogue; it was on an earlier topic ("Obama's Speech in Independence Tries to Redefine Patriotism"). Rambo Balano:

I, like Truman, love the U.S. first. *If we would have had to kill every Japanese person to win that war then so be it.* (emphasis mine) If we have to kill everyone on the side of the terrorists now to safeguard our country and our own innocent women and children then so be it. Nobody, not me, not anyone I know wants it to come to that but if that’s what it takes then that’s what should be done.

This is the quote, this is the context. It's an apology for genocide. You going to sign off on this? Does this sound like patriotism, honor and service to you, or a sackless wonder trying to convince the world how tough he is?

You are a sore on the a$$ of mankind.

No one ever "condones" genocide dipstick, unless it is the Muslim Terrorists we face now, or the Facist terrorists we faced in WWII.

We have fought a pristine war in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the chagrin of us old warriors, we are too focused on precluding collateral damage, even to the sacrifice of some of the good guys on our side.

Do you not realize that we could "take, occupy, and hold" both Iraq, and Afghanistan if we unleased only half the power we possess, and stopped trying to be PC in the conduct of a War?

Finally I would again point out it is the Left,who calls us baby killers, they did it in 1968 too. It is the Left who says "this war is lost" It is the Left who stands to profit by our defeat and it is the Left who is wedded to that concept for the sake of their own political gain.

Answer the question, you mincing feather merchant: as a babykiller, are you prepared to kill them yourself, or just delegate the job to someone else? Would you have the stones to kill them face to face, or just bomb them from up high in the air?
You actually have a relative in the military! You savage warrior, you! Ask your nephew if they were taught to make war on women and children. You called Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy a liar-that sniveling liberal whined that HE wasn't taught to make war on women and children. What about Eisenhower? You think he issued a field manual on bayoneting infants? And your blatant assertion that the Founding Fathers would condone the murder of women and children is obscene. Your assertion that patriots condone genocide is obscene.
How about it Rogue? You up for this one? Genocide is patriotic? Genocide is defensible? Genocide is what you were taught in the service?
You sicken me. This is so outrageous I won't even ascribe it to typical Republican behavior. You're off in a corner by yourself, Balano, fantasizing about murdering infants.
And why don't you give Sister Alice Cecilia a ring? See if she agrees that Catholic teaching permits you to fry pagan babies if it's all in a good cause.

BTW Philo, please discuss Clinton's military service with us, or how about Obama's?

Please also discuss the "patriotism" of your folks like Senator Durban who compared our troops to concentration camp guards, and communist terrorists. Please also discuss your former Presidential nominee, John Kerry, who said our fores "raped and pillaged in the manner of Ghenghis Kahn, and who said it was time "we stopped terrorizing women and children in Iraq", and turned that over to the Iraqis.

OH, and please discuss Murtha (the mother of all morons) who single handedly tried, and convicted six Marines of cold blooded murder.

But wait they were acquitted of all charges? Well you know I am sure your boy Murtha will be right up front apologizing for his error.

Don't hold your breath.

You people do not have a patriotic bone in your sorry bodies, and you have absolutely no room to criticize anyone's "lack of service".

Last time I checked you don’t go to hell for protecting those you care about when someone else would like to kill them.

Now that’s rich! A liberal calling me a baby killer. Yet you defend the slaughter of the most helpless among us on a daily basis. And you don’t even do it for the cause of independence but rather just so that you can live a life without consequence. Please don’t concern yourself with MY soul. Since you bring up the Founding Fathers; I wonder what they would have thought of this gross mutation of the constitution.

Responsibility! That’s what’s not working for you. Talk about weakling!

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

I didn't realize you were on here, Grinch. How about it? Are you down with your homie Balano? Do you believe that genocide is OK to protect American values? Are you one of those Republican artifical heroes-Balano, Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, Reagan, Nugent, John Wayne-who like to wave their guns around and when it's time to serve hide like rabbits?
Or are you one of those liberal fools who actually took up arms and served your country?

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Actualy, Balano, you said explicitly that you would have murdered the entire Japanese people to end World War II. As a babykiller, would you have been prepared to kill them yourself, or would you have delegated the job to someone else, so that their souls could have burned in hell rather than yours?
Do you have any idea how offensive your chestthumping cowardice is to actual patriots? I'm trying to picture the Founding Fathers killing British infants in the cause of independence; y'know, it's just not working for me. Weakling.

You're telling a pathetic lie, Denise - not surprising, though. To spin his post that way is to illustrate the way your liberal brethren are spinning almost everything, including the global warming hoax - if you lie convincingly and often enough, you hope we'll believe it.

We don't. You aren't capable of being ashamed, nor will the KC Red Star do anything about your lie, so the best we can hope for is for readers to be alerted to your continued dishonesty.

Denise you know darn well what I was talking about and don’t try to twist my words.

I would never be anything but respectful of anyone who serves or has served in the military. Anyone who has even half way read my posts knows that. My nephew, a Major in the Army, just got back from his third tour over there. Our people in uniform are the most worthy of respect and they always get it from me. Yesterday in fact, I had a woman call me genocidal because I wrote that the life of any of our service people is worth more than the all of those on the side of terrorists. Don’t even try to lecture me on respect for our military.

You also know that isn’t the type of “sacrifice” or “service” that Obama has in mind but just in case you don’t please refer to his web site. Sacrifice means higher taxes. Service means more government programs. He’s a phony and he was the subject of my ridicule. And just for the record, I wasn’t laughing. Higher taxes and bigger government are no laughing matters in my mind.

Perhaps by putting my name in bold letters in your first paragraph you thought you might actually get someone to read the left wing drivel you write, I don’t know. But this one is almost as bad as the one where you claim that heart attacks in Scotland went down 17% in one as a result of a smoking ban that went into effect. Also not true as confirmed by the Scottish National health service. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-data-from-scottish-national-health.html

Get real and get honest.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

Senator Obama’s Patriotism – What it means to this Navy Veteran. I hope you consider the following article: Senator Obama's Patriotism - a Veteran's Perspective
It is found at:
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/senator-obama%e2%80%99s-patriotism-a-veteran%e2%80%99s-perspective/