June 4th, 5th and 6th: a couple of interesting anniversaries

[Karl Heidenreich]

Oops! The forces and casualties for the Normandy Campaign were:


Strength

1,452,000 (by July 25) USA, British and Canadian
380,000 (by July 23) German

Casualties

United States: 29,000 dead, 106,000 wounded and missing;
United Kingdom: 11,000 dead, 54,000 wounded and missing;
Canada: 5,000 dead; 13,000 wounded and missing;
198,616 missing & captured

[iankw]

I have two problems with the mess that is Iraq today. Firstly Saddam was not a terrorist in the global sense. He might not have been very nice to some of his own people but then neither is Mugabe, and what are the US doing there? He certainly kept his people under control, which isn't the case today. Perhaps he understood what was needed to prevent the spread of terrorism in Iraq and applied it.

Secondly, people who are far more worldy wise than I made comment at the time that attacking Iraq would take the pressure off of Al Qaeda, in other words it would work against the war on terror. I don't think that can be denied now in the light of all the extra activity that these "people" seem capable of. That worries me because, like Karl, I think we need a determined and united front to win this most important of wars. Anything that dilutes this is a bad thing.

Just my four penn'orth.

Ian

[Bgile]

/agree.

I think this is the worst administration we have had in a very long time, possibly the worst in US History. Hard to say because I didn't experience the other really bad ones.

The whole thing has been very demoralizing for me and polarizing for the whole country. There are a lot of bad leaders out there and you just can't go attacking them all. It's just stupid, and many many thousands of lives have been lost.

But this is WAY off topic.

[RF]

RF:

Karl, you have missed a third anniverary, falling on your middle date in the title of your post - can you recall what it is?

Well, I know is political incorrect but it goes with the Romans destroying Jerusalem and showing the world how you destroy a "civil war" and wiping a guerrilla from the face of the earth. June 5th, 70 AD.

I was actually thinking of 5th June 1940 - the German attack across the Somme, as opposed to the British one in 1916. Here the French army stood and fought, held out for four days despite being outnumbered two to one, before the stukas blasted a path for the panzers....

[RF]

Firstly Saddam was not a terrorist in the global sense.
Ian

Maybe not, but he still attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait.

[RF]

/agree.

I think this is the worst administration we have had in a very long time, possibly the worst in US History.

The President is elected, in the case of the current one twice, so who is to blame?

[Bgile]

/agree.

I think this is the worst administration we have had in a very long time, possibly the worst in US History.

The President is elected, in the case of the current one twice, so who is to blame?

He now has a 23% "approval" rating.

His election shows the weakness of our imperfect system, but a better one has yet to be found. I didn't elect him, and there are those who feel that a poor opposition candidate, corrupt election officials, a brilliant and unethical campaign director and the Supreme Court elected him, not the people of the USA. In any case it was close and could have gone either way.

There are a lot of bumper stickers wanting to Impeach him for High Crimes and Misdimeanors. If he had more than two years left it might happen.

[Karl Heidenreich]

The worst US President ever was JIMMY CARTER.
The problem is that his goverment is 31 years ago and people don´t remember a lot of him. But God is wise and dennied him a second term. A Carter second term would have mean a general soviet offensive across Europe and the destruction of the West.
Bush is "second" worst because he is political unacurate and military stupid.
The US need an FDR class of leader now. After all FDR called Pearl Harbor for what it was and achieved an astounding victory in four years. Bush has been figting for four years and cannot win against some cameldrivers without education and technology.

But at leat the US and GB are fighting...

[RF]

His election shows the weakness of our imperfect system, but a better one has yet to be found. I didn't elect him, and there are those who feel that a poor opposition candidate, corrupt election officials, a brilliant and unethical campaign director and the Supreme Court elected him

So why are the candidates so poor from both parties? With a system of primaries you would have thought that the weak candidates would be weeded out?

Incidentaly, why persist with the Electoral College, wouldn't having the candidate with the biggest number of total votes as the winner be better - at least you would have found out how President Gore would have performed.....

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

I´m a critic of Bush, I really can´t stand that clown. But that doesn´t mean that Gore or Kerry could do better. The democratic party is less pragmatic and so damm liberal it cannot have a rational foreign policy. Remember Carter and Clinton. And, to be fair, Osama bin Laden is a Clinton creation, not Bush: it was "Boy" Clinton the one that let him go his way when he blew the Cole and the US embasies in Africa, etc.

Nowadays that an upcoming election comes in the US it´s better to have the republicans again rather than Obama or, worse, Hillary. Mrs. Clinton is a populist demagouge worse than anyone today.

And to be fair and re state my position: Bush is as good a president and proficient as an strategist as Krusty the Clown is honest to childhood...

[RF]

So who do you want as President?

John McCain?

Jeb Bush?

Dan Quayle?

Dick Cheney?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Isn´t Giulanni somewhere trying to be President.