Fun talk:Alaska
This is a bizarrely sober article. Perhaps too sober. And it's not really RW-style, is it? I'm turning on the blinking red light for this one. Doggedpersistance 19:38, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I don't wanna rain on anyone's parade... but this is a lot on information that anyone could get from Wikipedia... Someone has obviously worked hard on this, so I don't wanna just chop away, but If there are no objections, I wanna have a crack at it. user:SirChuckB 18:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Eh, I think someone wrote this for CP and copied it here. Think "Ice...". It's sort of funny, in the context of all our snarky state articles, to have one like this, isn't it? The tyke is a diligent researcher, after all. human
21:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
- Could do with a bit of reorg, though. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 21:18, 15 January 2008 (EST)
- Teh Wedge does not organize, he just keeps adding sections. Just be thankful that the spelling is gud! (PS, obviously we can feel free to fix it) human 21:50, 15 January 2008 (EST)
- Teh Wedge does not organize, he just keeps adding sections. Just be thankful that the spelling is gud! (PS, obviously we can feel free to fix it) human
- We don't need no stinkin organization. ;) Just could change a word or two here and there to snark it up a bit. It's already mostly written in a deadpan style that could pass for borderline parody. Just needs an alteration here and there. Mush! Secret Squirrel 22:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
- My point exactly. human 00:03, 16 January 2008 (EST)
- My point exactly. human
New Palin Picture[edit]
I think the new pic that was added (the flag) is at best lame and at worst, the exdact type of stupid rehashing of "scary" terms we accuse the right of. Palin is nothing even close to a Facist..... I mean, for crying out loud, facism rejects religion for extreme nationalism.... Can we do something about this? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 23:49, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
- Absolutely, as long as all the "chickenhawk" articles go too. Y'know, the exact type of stupid rehashing of "scary" terms we accuse the right of. Secret Squirrel 23:57, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
- (EC) Agreed. That Sinclair Lewis quote was misattributed anyway.
ListenerXTalkerX 23:57, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
- Wasn't that actually a Huey Long quote? Secret Squirrel 23:58, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
- (EC) Agreed. That Sinclair Lewis quote was misattributed anyway.
@ Secret Squirrel--"fascism" is a real thing, and Sarah Palin ain't it. "Chickenhawk"--as our article describes it--is a neologism used to describe a particular kind of subject, and all our examples seem to fit the bill. Not sure I follow your logic...TheoryOfPractice 00:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- They're both political epithets that don't actually mean anything substantial. Real fascism hasn't existed since Franco's regime fell in the 1970s, and any usage since is frivolous. "Chickenhawk" is frivolous to begin with - if it weren't, it would be applied equally to both parties and not just to whatever party one happens to hate. Secret Squirrel 00:12, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Well, I agree with you re: fascism being used as an epithet, but just because it died w/Franco doesn't mean the word no longer means anything substantial--there are scads of neo-fascists and neo-nazis that prove you wrong (..and LePen, Duke and Haider weren't far off the mark in terms of authentic fascism)...But name some "chickenhawks" that come from the other side of the spectrum. I remember arguing for Clinton--didn't serve in Vietnam, but bombed the crap out of Serbia and intentionally sent 300 000 Iraqi children to their graves, but I recall the mobocracy saying "no." TheoryOfPractice 00:21, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Who to apply the term to is completely subjective and says more about the political prejudices of the person using it than anything substantive about the person being called one. Barack Obama just increased the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan and he wasn't in the military either - so I guess anyone could come along and say that makes him a chickenhawk too, and it would be hard to make any substantive argument against (that doesn't smack of "he can't be a hawk because he's a pwogwessive Democrat, only Republicans are hawks, oh and Nader sux too PWND!!!11!"). Including Clinton as you noted was shouted down by the mobocracy, who also argued for the inclusion of Reagan (who was in the military) which is a pretty good sign the only reason that material is here at all is as a purely partisan political epithet, making it well off mission as well as juvenile. Secret Squirrel 07:41, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Um, this is suppose to be about Alaska. Can you take this discussion to the saloon bar or a debate page where it is more appropriate and likely to gain more attention.? 199.33.173.1 07:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT) — Unsigned, by: Π / talk / contribs
- Pi has a great point, but I'm gonna answer this here for ease of reading... Once again, SS... Something that has been explained SEVERAL TIMES!!!!!!! Being a commander and chief and ordering a strike or a war is not, repeat IS NOT why we call someone a hawk. The term hawk desribes people who actively cheer war. Obama is certainly not a hawk, he campaigned agaisnt war. His troop increase is meant to finish a war he inherited. Now, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the others who are calling on Obama to attack North Korea and destroy their launch facilities.... They are hawks... Do you understand that? The people cheering the war and demaning they go are hawks. Also, a person is not a chickenhawk simply because they didn't serve. Chickenhawks are the ones who ACTIVELY avoided service for some BS reason.... Can you comprehend this? or are we just gonna wait a few months and go through this all again? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 11:59, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Why the shouting again? You (and EVDebs) got all hot under the collar about this last time too and started a flame and revert war. Calm down. First: "Being a commander and chief and ordering a strike or a war is not, repeat IS NOT why we call someone a hawk. The term hawk desribes people who actively cheer war." - agreed, and if you had any reading comprehension skills at all you would have noticed that I am dubious about anyone who would claim Obama is a hawk, just sayin' if the term is going to be thrown at any Republican who clearly does not meet that definition of a hawk either (for example, Dan Quayle, or Ronald Reagan) anyone could just as easily apply the label to Obama. The term is a juvenile, partisan, subjective political epithet, and nothing more. Secret Squirrel 12:51, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Pi has a great point, but I'm gonna answer this here for ease of reading... Once again, SS... Something that has been explained SEVERAL TIMES!!!!!!! Being a commander and chief and ordering a strike or a war is not, repeat IS NOT why we call someone a hawk. The term hawk desribes people who actively cheer war. Obama is certainly not a hawk, he campaigned agaisnt war. His troop increase is meant to finish a war he inherited. Now, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the others who are calling on Obama to attack North Korea and destroy their launch facilities.... They are hawks... Do you understand that? The people cheering the war and demaning they go are hawks. Also, a person is not a chickenhawk simply because they didn't serve. Chickenhawks are the ones who ACTIVELY avoided service for some BS reason.... Can you comprehend this? or are we just gonna wait a few months and go through this all again? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 11:59, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Um, this is suppose to be about Alaska. Can you take this discussion to the saloon bar or a debate page where it is more appropriate and likely to gain more attention.? 199.33.173.1 07:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT) — Unsigned, by: Π / talk / contribs
- Who to apply the term to is completely subjective and says more about the political prejudices of the person using it than anything substantive about the person being called one. Barack Obama just increased the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan and he wasn't in the military either - so I guess anyone could come along and say that makes him a chickenhawk too, and it would be hard to make any substantive argument against (that doesn't smack of "he can't be a hawk because he's a pwogwessive Democrat, only Republicans are hawks, oh and Nader sux too PWND!!!11!"). Including Clinton as you noted was shouted down by the mobocracy, who also argued for the inclusion of Reagan (who was in the military) which is a pretty good sign the only reason that material is here at all is as a purely partisan political epithet, making it well off mission as well as juvenile. Secret Squirrel 07:41, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Well, I agree with you re: fascism being used as an epithet, but just because it died w/Franco doesn't mean the word no longer means anything substantial--there are scads of neo-fascists and neo-nazis that prove you wrong (..and LePen, Duke and Haider weren't far off the mark in terms of authentic fascism)...But name some "chickenhawks" that come from the other side of the spectrum. I remember arguing for Clinton--didn't serve in Vietnam, but bombed the crap out of Serbia and intentionally sent 300 000 Iraqi children to their graves, but I recall the mobocracy saying "no." TheoryOfPractice 00:21, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
"The term is a juvenile, partisan, subjective political epithet." You say that like there's something wrong with it. I mean, fuck, whatever happened to all the fun in the world? This is a goofy wiki, not the Meet the Press or the Times of London. If you want serious use of political terms and not juvenile name calling, I thing you've come to the wrong place. TheoryOfPractice 12:56, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- No I'm thinking more along the lines of we should be in the business of dissecting and criticizing all forms of political propaganda. There is a difference between doing this in a snarky and fun way, and doing it in a clearly partisan way using one side's propaganda against the other side exclusively. Secret Squirrel 13:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Secret, you claim that we're partisan, but you're much much worse. Reagan, from the early days in his political career, was all for using war and military force. Hell, he invaded Berkely and occupied it for two weeks, and I don't think his "serving" in the sense of making VD films for the army counts as being in combat. But I have the same views for anybody, I think Lieberman is a chickenhawk, I think Dukakis(sp?) can count as a chickenhawk, but I have no partisan agenda here. Hell, the whole start of this was me defending Palin.... Whereas you hijacked the discussion to talk about how the Republicans aren't chickenhawks... So who has the agenda here? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 13:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- If you think I'm here to defend Republicans you must have missed this, this, and hundreds of other edits. But I haven't forgotten who the two pricks were who turned my having a little fun with the Clinton article over a frivolous off-mission concept into a MoveOn dogma enforcement fest, nor forgiven. So when you correctly noted that the "fascist" label doesn't apply to Palin by a longshot, I have every business calling your hypocrisy and bringing this subject back up. P.S. Dukakis was stationed in Korea and the reason Reagan invaded Berkeley as I recall had something to do with a bunch of mob-rule advocates trying to go outside the law to force the city of Berkeley to turn a vacant lot into "peoples park" rather than building much needed development on it. Deserved, IMO. Secret Squirrel 17:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
- Secret, you claim that we're partisan, but you're much much worse. Reagan, from the early days in his political career, was all for using war and military force. Hell, he invaded Berkely and occupied it for two weeks, and I don't think his "serving" in the sense of making VD films for the army counts as being in combat. But I have the same views for anybody, I think Lieberman is a chickenhawk, I think Dukakis(sp?) can count as a chickenhawk, but I have no partisan agenda here. Hell, the whole start of this was me defending Palin.... Whereas you hijacked the discussion to talk about how the Republicans aren't chickenhawks... So who has the agenda here? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 13:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
I apoligize if I mischaracterized your intentions... Odd how you can have nuanced opinions, but because I don't think Clinton fits the category I'm in lockstep with Moveon, an organization obviously stronger than any ever seen on this earth given your strange obsession with them. However, once again you have hijacked a discussion to turn it to your personal agenda. If you really wanna rehash this again, take it to the Chickenhawk talk page. If you just wanna be a dick and wikistalk me to attack every position I take, just bitch on my Userpage or something so I can delete it and ignore you. SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 11:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
Back to the picture[edit]
I saw it here, thought it a tad weak (here), so I also added it to Sarah Palin in case the decision is that it is teh stoopid. ħuman 17:07, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
Battle of Kiska[edit]
The Canadians were also involved, being units of the 13th infantry brigade, which appears to have gone unacknowledged in this article. Also, 300 total casualties, but only 107 were officially reported as killed (The rest being MIA or coming down with trench foot). Friendly fire killed 4 Canadians and 28 Americans, while wounding 50 more. Also, only 4 men were killed by booby traps. the single biggest loss of life was when the USS Abner struck a mine, killing 71 men. — Unsigned, by: Solidarity1917 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 03:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
To add[edit]
Something on this (other sources available) should be included. Anna Livia (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm Missing A Subtle Joke…[edit]
…but the Klondike region is in Canada. Mr Larrington (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)