River Valley Blogs

Michael Welch Will Be Correct -- Again... wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:25 AM:

" I didn't say Limbaugh hadn't 'good ratings' -- I said he stands to do even better, especially financially, with another Democratic president to hate and pound incessantly. And I bet I'm right -- again... "

Jeff wrote on Oct 26, 2008 12:19 AM:

" Welch, wrong again. Limbaugh has good ratings no matter who is in office. "

Michael Welch Hard As Peach Pits... wrote on Oct 25, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Losing this election (and probably losing big, i. e. the O gets, I predict, 350-400 electoral votes) when Obama has been portrayed (here esepcially) as hardly short of being the anti-Christ or Osama Bin Laden's 'love child' OR both has GOT to be like crapping peach pits for our local beloved religious right wingies. I predict also that Limbaugh and company are rubbing their fat soft wet and GREEDY hands in anticipation of the O presidency because the audience for anti-Obama shpiels, books, 'exposes' etc., will soar with that 10-20% who 'hate' or near-hate the guy. (I myself am rather excited and optimistic though 2009 IS gonna be a really tough year economically -- and the O will be 'tested' in the financial fires LONG before any 'foreign' machination...) "

You see Michael wrote on Oct 25, 2008 8:03 AM:

" Republicans just can't make an argument using the truth. They try to deceive people every day just like Rush Limbaugh on his radio show. The thing is, that's why they always lose these kinds of arguments and thats why their going to lose this election. "

No that was me wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:44 PM:

" who said I read the book. I didn't want to post my name because I was full of it, I never did read the book. Just looked up some reviews on it and went from there. And good reviews they were, at least I thought they made me sound believable.... "

To Michael wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:57 PM:

" You are right-that is a good arguement for using a consistent alias, as that wasnt me who posted I read the book. "

Michael Welch Theres An Easy Way To Fix That... wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:47 PM:

" You said you read the book -- the comment is just a bit below. If that wasn't you then this is only another example why anonymous commenting is so pernicious. IF you are not the commenter who insisted he read Alperovitz then you ought to have made it clear and the BEST way is to at the very least have a 'nomme de plume' you use all the time so we know 'who' we are talking to. Otherwise when a mistake occurs or an assumption that isn't accurate, you're as much to blame as anyone else. And then again you could well be lying... "

To Michael wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:29 PM:

" I never meant to infer I read the book. I was just prepping myself by asking some questions.... "

Michael Welch And NOW Try Reading It Eh... wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Also as per 'Bowers' I wonder why someone PRETENDS to have read a book he obviously hasn't read -- as I wouldn't need to 'answer' these questions because Alperovitz covers ALL this and MUCH MORE in a very hefty scholarly work which is NOT 'one sided' as charged but explains and critiques opposing positions also. If you thought 'Bowers' and I were 'bluffing' and wouldn't see through your intellectual chicanery well you lose. NOW -- get the book from the library and ACTUALLY READ IT hmm; and check out 'Day of Deceit' too while you're there... "

Michael Welch The New President And James F Brynes... wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:24 PM:

" When Truman became prez at FDR's sudden death on April 12, 1945 he initially presented himself as a very modest fella indeed but he was actually determined to rid HIS (now!) administration of whom he thought of as 'extreme' New Dealers. Edward Stettinius the sec'y of state was replaced by a conservative South Carolina senator James F. Brynes who believed the US needed to 'get tough' with the Sovs. Brynes was a tremendous influence on Truman and convinced him that dropping the bombs would 'send' Uncle Joe that 'message'; moreover ONE BILLION (think 700 bil today eh) dollars had been spent on developing the atomic bombs and NOT to use them after all seemed somehow 'wasteful'... "

Michael Welch Stalin Was NOT Afraid BUT The Japanese Were... wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Actually (see Truman's memoirs) when HST informed Stalin of the bomb at the late July '45 Potsdam conference in occupied Germany the president expected to pop Uncle Joe's eyes and catch his breath. Stalin merely nodded and said he 'hoped' the new superweapon would be 'put to good use. This flummoxed TRUMAN, not JS, but of course Stalin's spy network within the much vaunted 'Manhatten project' already understood what 'the bomb' was and that it was likely to work. (The US had only THREE bombs at the time and Stalin thought, rightly, that 'we' were bluffing.) The Sovs invaded Japanese Manchuria as per agreement but what the Japanese MOST feared was they would invade Japan itself and divide it into two occupational zones, one Sov, one US... "

To Michael wrote on Oct 23, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Okay, so if the Soviets hadnt seen the "bomb", the war could have continued, we would have had maybe another war with the "puffed up, brave" soviets, and lost many more of our men. Not accepting your premise, but if what you say is true, it could have saved many Americans lives. "

Michael Welch Yep Its In The Book -- IF You Read It... wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Today some of my comments have been relegated to outermost cyberspace I fear so I'll repeat re: Gar Alperovitz: the Japanese war cabinet was divided over surrender yes but THE issue was the retention of the emperor as the social, cultural and political symbol of Japanese identity. Many in the Truman administration advised the president (this is in Alperovitz' book IF as per 'Bowers' you've ACTUALLY read it) to assure the Japanese that Hirohito would not be deposed or worse, tried as a war criminal. Truman refused although AFTER the atomic bombings this DID become the approved policy. It seems quite clear the admin FEARED a Japanese surrender BEFORE the bombs could be 'demonstrated' to the Soviets... "

Michael Welch In Praise Of Robert Stinnett... wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Countering 'official history' is a Sisyphean effort I think as there are always those who simply 'dismiss' out of hand (see below) any scholarship that takes them from their historical comfort zones. Robert Stinnett by the way who authored 'Day of Deceit' also wrote a positive account of George H W Bush's WWII exploits as a Navy pilot; moreover his book does not even condemn FDR but asserts that Roosevelt's intentions were 'good' in that he recognized the threat of the uh ORIGINAL 'axis of evil' powers and the prez HAD to get the country into the war somehow. Stinnett is just one of those brave historians who believe we ought to see our history as it REALLY is, not only as we wish it were... "

harsch wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:56 AM:

" An honest man need not have read Alperovitz to know that the bombs were not dropped out of military necessity. a man who has read it and still wonders is likely dishonest, if not then brainwashed. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:21 AM:

" Sir, not for one minute do I believe you read Alperovitz's book. If you had, you wouldn't be raising the questions you're asking, because Alperovitz answered them all. "

Ive read The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:58 PM:

" It overlooks most evidence contrary to his "claims". It's a conspiracy theory book. It fails to explain why Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. It fails to look at the Japanese culture of surrender being shameful. It fails and many of you fail to recognize that the casualties predicted from continuing to fight a conventional war were enormous for the allies. It is similar to allot of what's going on today, Monday morning quarterbacking of the Iraq war, a war which for all you other history revisionists, was supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans alike, but it's Bush that takes the fall. And for the icing on the cake, Colin Powell, the big cheerleader for the war, just did a final cover his butt move endorsing Obama. "

Bowers to Good One wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:11 PM:

" First of all, calm down, get a grip, take a pill, get your bearings. Now, go read Gar Alperovitz's "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb." "

Kizarny to Welch wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:53 PM:

" Well, your logic does make some sort of sense, unlike Harsch who wont discuss-but rather just call names. However, I do reject your premise that FDR orchestrated the attack by the Japanese. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:39 PM:

" The original Potsdam Declaration stated the allies would leave the Japanese emperor alone if Japan surrendered.(The emperor is the equivalent of Jesus Christ to the Japanese). Then came the successful testing of the atomic bomb in New Mexico. Truman and Jimmy Byrnes then took out the assurances regarding the emperor's safety from the declaration, thereby making any surrender impossible. They then dropped the bombs, and irony of ironies, assured the emperor's safety when Japan surrendered after Soviet entry into the war. "

harsch wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Don't forget koln, kiel, hamburg,etc... "

Good one wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:16 PM:

" We MADE the Japanese attack us! It's OUR fault! Why? Welch read it in a book, so it MUST be true! Nevermind any books that paint a different picture. And if you disagree with him, you're a right wingy dingy and a HATER! Same as Bowers, if you disagree you're a hater. You two don't have enough intelligence to light a 15 watt bulb. I don't know why I even waste my time responding, you two don't make comments worthy of a response. "

Michael Welch War ALWAYS Degrades Morality... wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:05 PM:

" MY original point though was that ONCE the US was attacked it took very little time until any sense of PROPORTIONALITY disappeared. The constant horrific bombings of both Japan and Germany eventually made NO DISTINCTION between civilian and military targets; in fact as in the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki the VERY CIVILIAN nature of the targeting WAS their PRECISE APPEAL. In 1936 the German 'Condor wing' bombed the city of Guernica during the Spanish civil war and killed hundreds of noncombatants. The German (nazi) government CLAIMED it was bombing a bridge (which by the way remained intact; the master race 'missed' it apparently) but the world was shocked. In a few year the ALLIES were doing much worse things with their planes and bombs... "

Michael Welch Toshiro Mifune Attacks Malibu Beach... wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:57 AM:

" I've written this MANY times but of course NO right wingy dingy will ever do it because it involves READING A BOOK! YET -- see Robert Stinnett's 2001 study 'Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor' and you might also peruse John Toland's ('Toland theater' -- from the Toland family of La Crosse) 'Infamy,' an earlier study of the attack. The work of historian Gar Alperovitz on the decisions to drop the atomic bombs is also crucial in comprehending what REALLY happened. OF COURSE once attacked the US would fight -- that was the point: get the Japanese to attack FIRST. There's an important memo to that very effect revealed in Stinnett; in essence FDR sucker baited the Rising Sun... "

Kizarny wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Harsch, I answered your question on a blog. That is hardly stalking. Welch moaned about us retaliating against the Japanese, he was asked what we should have done, then you asked "who attacked us". I simply answered your question. Your post doesnt do anything to make me less frightened of you. Three cheers for anonymous posting. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:29 AM:

" At Potsdam, Truman learned the Russians would enter the war in mid-August, and he knew this would cause Japan to surrender. He knew this because we had cracked the Japanese code. So then Harry drops the bombs anyway. A barbaric act. At least that's how his own chief of staff William Leahy described it. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Welch is right. The atomic bombs were unnecessary and, according to a US government played no role in Japan's surrender. It was Russian entry into the war that caused Japan to surrender "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:24 AM:

" Yes, the Japanese attacked us, but FDR knew it was coming and did not warn the commanders in Hawaii. He wanted the attack to occur to get America into the war. On Dec. 6, 1941, (more than two years after Hitler invaded Poland) Americans were dead set against going to war. All that changed the next day. "

harsch wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:04 AM:

" I believe the wars in this case are Iraq and Afghanistan. Read the sand in the face reference and then transition to WWII. By the way a direct statement is not an allusion. Nevertheless, I am glad to have you stalking me. "

Kizarny wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Harsch, to answer your question, the Japanese attacked us. Your posts are becoming more frightening-as alluded to on another board, if you werent homeless, I bet you would have cages in your basement populated by those who disagree with you. "

harsch wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:24 PM:

" One great thing about life is that just because Teddy Roosevelt said something doesn't mean it is right. Anyone who reads the bloodlusty comments after Welch would call a pacifist the only patriot. Who attacked us, Freak? And Jeff, the punishment bombings and the two nuclear bombings relegated the allies to the same moral trench as the Germans. "

Jeff wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:54 PM:

" Unfortunately violence is the only option sometimes. I don't like it but it's the reality of the world we live in. "

Jeff wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:51 PM:

" Is hating your country patriotic? "

H wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Both Madame Albright and Senator Biden-Kinnock have both guaranteed an attack on the US during BHO's first few days. The coming Venezuela missile crisis will need to be dealt with "a big stick." Unfortunately, BHO has shown that he can only answer problems with rhetoric, which always fails. As Roosevelt stated, "Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big." McCain, who idolizes TR, could respond properly. Hopefully BHO can find himself big enough to appoint McCain as Secretary of Defense or State. "

Jeff wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Uh, 85% of all WWII deaths were on the Allied side, 15% were from the Axis powers. 12 million Jews exterminated by the Nazis, 3-10 million Chinese exterminated by the Japanese. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is nothing compared to the 'exponential' numbers of murders the Axis animals inflicted on innocent people. "

Carnival Freak from Murder Creek wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Michael, are you being deliberately obtuse? The justification is that they attacked us first. Can I ask how you would have handled the situation? Sit on our hands and wait for another attack? Wave our white flags and allow ourselves to be led to some camps? What other recourse did we have? You criticize what we did, yet offer no alternatives. Yes, we hurt them more than they hurt us. Its like the bully who shoves some kids around, then cries because one kid stood up to him and "shoved him harder". "

Michael Welch The US Out Of Control... wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:19 PM:

" The Incredible Hulk is rather the man who has had sand kicked in his face gone nuts and wreaking his fantasy vengeance. As per WWII the US continually insisted it was a 'victim' of the Pearl Harbor attack which killed nearly 3000 Americans and because it was, EVERYTHING it did to Japan, which by the end caused the deaths of HUNDREDS of thousands, was fully justified including the nefarious and unnecessary atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both deliberately targeted to kill masses of civilians and 'impress' the world and particularly the Soviet Union with our VERY 'big stick' indeed. Slaughtering others in exponential numbers is EVER 'excused' but attacking 'US' is ALWAYS 'unjust'... "

Michael Welch Theodore Roosevelts Wars... wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Theodore Roosevelt as president of the United States (1901-09) NEVER started a war; as NOT president however he unfortunately had a distinct penchant for pressuring OTHER presidents to start wars. He was adamant about Wilson being a 'coward' for not diving into World War I and Roosevelt's sons Theodore Jr, Kermit, Archie and Quentin, his youngest and most beloved, did join though the elderly and ill TR was not 'allowed.' Quentin was killed in an aerial dogfight and his death severely depressed his father who in some sense then grieved himself to death. Wars are about death, make no mistake, and ought to avoided as if the deadliest plague which they are... "

One Incredible Hulk episode wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:41 AM:

" This is weird, but one episode I remember concerned theft from a church, and there is a similar story in the breaking news section. I forget what actually caused David Banner to become so enraged in that episode...maybe just the idea of stealing from a church? Big Spenders last name wouldnt happen to be Wiggens, would it? "

H wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Teddy Roosevelt stated, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." And, "Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace." I always felt that the character of the Incredible Hulk was both the soft speaker (Bruce David Banner) and the big stick (the Hulk.) Banner's idealism and hope had to give way to the Hulk's force and vengence. Therein lies that eternal (and fruitless) debate (and fascination with the Hulk.) Giving Teddy the final word, "The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer. " "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »