Well I'm not going to dispute what's on Wikipedia that's for sure. There are many sources about the historical aspects of the conflict at Gallipoli. In fact, we have a national day of mourning/celebration called ANZAC day in order to remember those who served in Gallipoli. It is fairly well accepted that it was the British in charge and it was the British who used the Australian and New Zealand soldiers as what is commonly referred to as 'cannon fodder' that morning and till the end of the war. This conflict has gone a long way towards creating the antagonism which now exists to a lesser or greater extent between Australians and Brittons.

Also to add, there were a huge number of Australian soldiers involved in the Boer War in Africa which occured before the turn of the century. Not such a historical conflict for citizens of the US, but certainly a sad time for Australian families.

Absofuckinglutely no.

I voted Democrat in all of the big offices. The only local office election that I voted in was University Regent, where I voted for Darlow because her position on the current 'big issue' was "I haven't made up my mind yet."

I voted against the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative", which would ban affirmative action programs. I don't have a strong stance on the issue, but I dislike the deceptive language used by it's proponents.

I voted for a dove hunting season, and against a lengthy amendment to the Michigan constitution which would restrict the right of eminent domain.

...the Democrats cannot win a war, and haven't done so since Truman. (Ann Coulter may be quite right about them, and about why.) This war needs to be won. None of the present leadership of the Democratic Party can get the job done. Since I've understood for decades that there is no such thing as a cheap war, I'm not fazed at the price of fighting one.

W has the vision to overthrow dictators. This vision is conspicuously lacking across the aisle. I go with the vision, thanks.

Were there any surprises in this reply? :right:

Why does the war need to be won, and how do you define winning UG? And which war are you talking about anyway?

Voted for Santorum and Sherwood even though Sherwood is a bonifide ass even in good Rep times.

If W can go and promote this dumbass with a straight face...I guess I can vote for him while wincing. :blush:

Felt pretty good about voting for Swann. He's not under investigation. Not yet anyway.

Pickett has been actively pro 2a for as long as I can remember.

Using enlisted men as cannon fodder was not unique to any nation. That is what generals did; that was their knowledge of war and their appreciation of lower classes. I believe there is an old movie based upon a real world WWI event where soldiers were court marshaled because they did not charge. Well, 1/4 of them immediately died to machine guns as they rose from the trench. Did not matter to top management who ordered them into that frontal assault anyway.

A famous Gen MacArthur quote addressed that saying "frontal assault is only for mediocre commanders". His was radical thinking for WWI and was only becoming acceptable fact in WWII. That misguided concept of a frontal assault created a Maginot Line.

Such total disrespect for the troops back then was not unique to WWI British Generals. Also was another problem that we still grasp with today. Gallipoli was about fighting a war for political reasons - with little regard to military realities and consequences. One should start by asking, if Gallipoli had succeeded, then what? What would it have really accomplished? The embarrassing conclusion is little. So why was it conducted? One must study the political agendas of Churchill and his peers of that time.

Meanwhile, I am totally confused by JayMcGee and Aliantha posts. If you are so concerned what America does, then why were you both so silent about new American laws that make it legal to kidnap, hide, and torture you? You want a right to vote in America? Hell. I saw neither respond appropriately when S3930 was made law - so that you can be denied rights under the Geneva Conventions and so that you can be denied access to the International Red Cross. Americans passed these laws, in part, because you endorsed extraordinary rendition, torture, and secret prisons by being so silent.

Though I wish we could have ousted Cheeseburger Montgomery as AG, I'm proud of Ohio today. Governor and Senator...wow. This red state is turning blue!

The peeps have spoken.

Well, he asked about the voters in the US because, well, the voters in the US just had an election. Doofus.

You want to vote in the poll, click a circle. Knock yourself out. Feel the thrill of Democracy for yourself.

By the way, how did you vote?

ch'y'ahh right!

Well #88 didn't poll too well (I haven't seen the numbers yet) so I guess there won't be an investigation. He picked the wrong election cycle.


edit- Swanny won my township.

You've demonstrated at length that you don't get it. And if telling you you're still wrong amounts to obscenity, clearly your notion of obscenity could stand some review.

Mariko, if you think you've got the stuff to shut me up, it's just one more example of how little you know.

Aliantha, how many wars are there? I say there is only one single war that America is involved in. Afghanistan and Iraq are not separate wars -- the only ones pushing that view are those who want America to lose the overall war on terrorism, and such persons set themselves against humanity's cause in the process of gratifying their egos or their fascistic urges. What these fights are are campaigns in the overall war.

We are not yet involved as any kind of belligerent in the other dust-up du jour, the Darfur genocide. You ask me, it's time for a regime change in Khartoum -- a complete one, and with the traditional punishment for architects of genocide: hanging by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

Winning is defined as repairing failed states. Admittedly, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the most promising of materials for the repair work, as they have real problems with disunion -- no great enthusiasm at the grass roots for functioning in the world as nation states. Nonetheless, getting these disconnected, enfeebled states (with air-quotes or without, as you will) into a connection with the overall global economy that is enriching to their peoples, and friendly to the rest of the world, is what will win. The areas, for they are regions and almost all of Africa, that are not connected significantly in dollars and cents terms to the rest of the global economy will be the sources of troubles for the world until such time as these areas are connected and prosper, each after their fashion.

Why choose Swann over Rendell? That's one I really can't understand.