A
Soldier's Epitaph
by Mark McMillan
When the drums of war call down will you come running? Does your day
begin and end with you and you alone? Is your sleep untroubled with
the heavy burden of duty? Is your backbone weak? Do you fear to tread
and lay down your life for another?
Well fear you need
not have, for I am a soldier. It is I and my brethren who will stand
the wall this night and all nights until the dogs of chaos have gone.
So my friends sleep well in your bed. Fear not the sleep of the dead.
I am a Soldier, I
slip into the night under a blanket of stars and hold onto the ground
to stop this evil blight, while you rest easy it is I that finishes
your fight.
Will I complain when
I cannot take one step more?
No, not I, for I
am a Soldier and my duty quite clear, I fight to protect your freedom;
your life, your right to be here.
Will I tremble and
run when evil is near?
No, not I, for I
am a Soldier and willing to fight; not for your god, your country or
rallying call, but for life, love and freedom for all.
Do I ask for reward?
Do I ask for Glory?
No, No, Not I, for
I am a soldier and war has no reward. As for glory you will need to
speak to the Authors, read their laws perhaps they do understand the
hardships of war.
So what do I ask
for in return?
Well I am a Soldier
and this is my law;
Waste not a single
moment, cherish every breath, face every challenge and live your life,
please be bold and ask those famous of questions;
"Went the day
well? Did many fall?
Yes, but a few.
We died and never knew
But, well or ill.
Freedom, we died for you"
I am a Soldier and
I died for you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CHRISTMAS
POEM
Author unknown
The embers glowed
softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't
loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the
sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble,
I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled,
some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment
I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..
To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."
"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at
'Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas
that 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his
watch in the jungles of 'Nam
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and
he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.
I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.
I can stand at my
post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother...
Who stand at the
front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."
"So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there
something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled
a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget.
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come
home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.
Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LIBERALS
HATE THE MILITARY, NOT THE WAR
Most liberals claim
to be "anti-war," but what is really bothering them deep down
inside is a hatred of the military. After all, how many people are "pro-war?"
I'm sure there are a few crazies out there, but for the most part, we
are all anti-war. If you parade around shouting to the world that you
are anti-war, I believe that what you are really protesting is the military
and those who serve their country.
Let's discuss three
groups of liberals and their hatred of the military. The left wing media,
some of the members of our very own Congress and Senate, and the loony
protesters that like to picket military recruiting stations and gather
to shout down conservatives who are giving pro-military speeches.
The left wing media
show their anti-military bias by ignoring the legitimate war heroes
and the rest of the 98% of the soldiers who do their jobs with courageous
professionalism, while giving most of their ink to a few screw ups in
the ranks, scattered malcontents, and "phony soldiers." Here's
a quick test. How many heroes from the current war can you name? If
you get your news from the left wing media you probably don't know any.
You probably know the commander, General David Petraeus, but have been
told that he is a liar and shill for the president. You probably know
the names of Lindy England and Charles Graner (of Abu Graib fame), because
the media love to highlight our rare failures. You might even know Jessica
Lynch, but that is only because of the media feminist, victim agenda.
Can you name any
of our real heroes? How about our three Medal of Honor winners? They
are SFC Paul Smith-US Army, CPL Jason Dunham-USMC, and LT Michael Murphy-US
Navy. And don't forget the first female soldier to be awarded the Silver
Star since World War II, SGT Leigh Ann Hester-US Army. The media didn't
give her too much coverage because she was a genuine hero.
Our next group of
anti-military liberals is made up of several liberal members of Congress
and the Senate. Here are some comments on some of their most outrageous
statements (There are a lot more statements out there, but here are
a few of the most outrageous characters we have.).
Rep
John Murtha (D-PA)-A former Marine himself who claimed that eight Marines
were guilty of the cold-blooded murder of civilians in Haditha, Iraq,
even before an investigation was conducted. After the investigation,
only one of the Marines was charged with a serious crime, and that was
negligent homicide. Rep Murtha has yet to issue a public apology.
Sen John
Kerry (D-MA)-Claimed our troops terrorized Iraqi women and children.
Sen Dick
Durbin (D-IL)-Compared our soldiers at Gitmo, Cuba to Nazis, Soviets,
and the Cambodian mass-murderer, Pol Pot.
Sen Ted
Kennedy (D-MA)-Compared our troops at Abu Graib to Saddam's sadistic
henchmen.
Sen Harry
Reid (D-NV)-Declared the war lost. I bet this inspired our troops.
Sen Hillary
Clinton (D-NY)-Publicly doubted the credibility of the commander in
the Middle East, General David Petraeus. Gee Hillary. Now how many generals
do you think would like to see you become their commander in chief?
You probably noticed
that everyone on the list above is a Democrat. And remember, they all
claim to support the troops.
Our final group of
anti-military liberals is my favorite. The protesters who picket recruiting
stations or try to shout down and disrupt those who are publicly speaking
in support of the war.
How can you protest
an all-volunteer military? That just doesn't make any sense. Aren't
these liberals supposed to be pro-choice? If you are anti-war, then
don't join the military. There's really no need to protest against those
who join unless you are anti-military.
And how can you protest
and disrupt those who are speaking out in favor of the war? The protesters
claim that they are simply using their First Amendment rights. But what
they are actually doing is abusing their free speech rights to shout
down those who they disagree with. Is that tolerance? I'm not a constitutional
lawyer, but I don't think that is what the First Amendment is all about.
Many liberals despise
the military and try to hide those unpatriotic feelings by claiming
to be anti-war. In closing, I can think of two reasons why they hate
the soldiers. Soldiers possess courage and selfless service, two traits
that liberals lack, and this is why liberals despise them. A liberal's
idea of courage is conducting a protest in the United States, the freest
nation on Earth. How inspiring. They lack selfless service and don't
know what it means to serve something bigger then their own selfish
interests. That is why they don't understand patriotism and God.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
STAFF
CLS TRAINING
LESSON 1: EVALUATE A CASUALTY
LESSON 2: TREAT A STAFF CASUALTY WHO IS EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT
LESSON 3: TREAT A POWERPOINT SUCKING HEAD WOUND (SHW)
LESSON 4: CONTROL CAPILLARY BLEEDING FROM PAPER CUT
LESSON 5: INITIATE A CAFFEINE IV
LESSON 6: TREAT FOR HEMORRHOIDS
LESSON 7: REQUESTING PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION WITH A 7-LINE PSYEVAL
LESSON 8: ADMINISTER ACETOMINOPHEN FOR A MIGRAINE HEADACHE
LESSON 9: ADMINISTER EYE DROPS TO A CASUALTY SUFFERING FROM 1000-YARD
MONITOR STARE
LESSON 10: ADMINISTER SELF-AID TO A BUTT-CHEWING WOUND
LESSON 1: EVALUATE
A CASUALTY
Conditions: In the
headquarters building you come upon an overworked and frazzled staff
member wandering aimlessly through the hallways in a Nietzscheian state
of despair.
Standards: Get the casualty to respond to at least two (2) situational
awareness questions. Examples:
What is your name?
What day of the week is it?
When was the last time you went home?
Are you eating right?
Are you getting enough PT?
Are you working harder or smarter?
Has your retirement been approved?
Did you know that selfless service is one of the seven Army Values?
LESSON 2: TREAT A
STAFF CASUALTY WHO IS EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT
Conditions: Given
a casualty who is inadvertently exposed to direct sunlight.
Standards: Make them as comfortable as possible by immediately moving
them inside of the building and back into their normal environment,
out of the natural light and fresh air. Check for shock.
LESSON 3: TREAT A
POWERPOINT SUCKING HEAD WOUND (SHW)
Conditions: Following
a long meeting you see a casualty with a PowerPoint induced sucking
head wound. The casualty is breathing, you have a permanent marker.
Standards: This is a medical emergency. Write "SHW" on the
casualty's forehead with the permanent marker and transport immediately
to the hospital.
LESSON 4: CONTROL
CAPILLARY BLEEDING FROM A PAPER CUT
Conditions: Given
a whiny staff member who is complaining about a paper cut.
Standards: Apply direct pressure with your hand to the casualty's mouth
until the whining stops.
LESSON 5: INITIATE
A CAFFEINE IV
Conditions: Given
an unconscious staff member who cannot hang for a 70-hour work week,
a coffee pot, an intravenous injector, rubber tubing, Povidone-Iodine,
adhesive tape, and a catheter.
Standards: Successfully start a caffeine IV line into the casualty's
arm. No more than two full pots of coffee may be administered to a casualty
by non-medical personnel.
LESSON 6: TREAT FOR
HEMORRHOIDS
Conditions: Given
a staff member with hemorrhoids and a seat cushion.
Standards: Make the casualty as comfortable as possible with the cushion.
Offer to fetch documents from the printer for the casualty in order
to minimize their discomfort and prevent further injury.
LESSON 7: REQUEST
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION WITH A 7-LINE PSYEVAL
Conditions: Given
a staff member who is exhibiting psychotic behavior (Real psychotic
behavior, not the every day, run-of-the-mill, staff-style behavior).
Standards:
Line 1. Location of the casualty.
Line 2. Call Sign of the casualty. Landline phone number, DSN, fax,
cell phone number, Blackberry number, home phone, home e-mail, home
address, NIPR e-mail, and SIPR e-mail.
Line 3. Number of patients by precedence:
A - Urgent (Green-Suiter)
B - Priority (Contractor)
C - Routine (DA Civilian)
D - Convenience (NAF employee)
Line 4. Special equipment required:
A - None
B - Straight jacket
C - Taser
Line 5. Number of patients:
A - Litter
B - Ambulatory
Line 6. Method of marking pick-up site:
A - Panels
B - Pyrotechnic signal
C - Smoke signal
D - Loud screams
E - Other
Line 7. NBC Contamination:
N- Residual radiation from computer monitors
B- Toner
C - Coffee
LESSON 8: TREAT A
STAFF MEMBER WITH A HEADACHE
Conditions: Given
a casualty complaining of a staff-induced headache, a bottle of acetaminophen
and a canteen of water.
Standards: Administer the proper dosage of acetaminophen for a staff
member (4 pills every 2-hours)
LESSON 9: ADMINISTER
EYE DROPS TO A CASUALTY SUFFERING FROM 1000-YARD MONITOR STARE
Conditions: Given
a computer workstation, a bottle of eye drops, and a staff member who
is "staring through" his monitor and not blinking for several
minutes.
Standards: Throw yourself between the staff member and computer monitor.
This is the only way to break the monitor's Svengali-like grip on your
co-worker. Administer eye drops to both eyes. Instruct the casualty
to take a 10-minute break away from his computer.
LESSON 10: ADMINISTER
SELF-AID TO A BUTT-CHEWING WOUND
Conditions: While
under hostile fire, administer self-aid to a butt-chewing wound.
Standards: Suppress hostile fire with excuses, finger pointing, blame
shifting, and counter accusations. Move immediately to a covered position.
Check for exit wound and perform tactical field care to the wound(s).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ISLAM
IS A FARCE
I saw a car last
week at a stoplight with a license plate that said "Sept 11."
Bless his heart. May we never forget. My first impulse was to hop out
of my truck and shake the driver's hand. But reason got the best of
me. If I ran over to his truck door he might have thought he was being
jacked. Well, anyway I had already been thinking about writing another
posting about Islam and this prompted me to get started.
This is an intolerant
posting. I tend to get intolerant while remembering September 11th.
Muslims decided that day that commercial aircraft, office buildings,
and thousands of civilians were legitimate military targets. It may
have only been a group 20 young Muslims men with a support network of
a thousand al-Qaeda, but why did millions of Muslims worldwide cheer
and our own Muslims here at home say nothing? And on top of all that
we had our own home grown politically correct apologists telling us
that such a response was legitimate because of our worldwide oppression.
But don't listen to them, they're just a bunch of moral relativist morons.
Those weren't legitimate targets because they were civilians. Those
of us in the modern world don't target civilians any more. They may
become collateral damage (usually because Muslims are hiding behind
them) but they are not specifically targeted.
So why did you do
this? You were supposedly upset that US forces were stationed in your
holy land of Saudi Arabia, and that the US is the supporter of Israel.
But you conveniently put aside the fact that we helped you defeat the
communists in Afghanistan and that we protected your civilians from
Serbian aggression. The real reason you attacked is that your type of
Islamic fascism is based on hatred. Hatred of the world that passed
you by 6 centuries ago, and your own self-loathing. And you targeted
our civilians because you are basically a bunch of cowards who are afraid
to face the might and muscle of the US military.
Islam is a ruthless,
backward religion. That is, if you could even call it a religion. It
is more of a retarded way of life. It is a murderous creed that covers
your religion, politics, justice, economics and social systems and gives
you an excuse to kill people and conquer nations. Please understand
one thing. Most Americans do not respect your religion. We sneer at
it. Only the hardcore politically correct crowd among us claims to respect
it, and they claim to tolerate everything--Which is really just a euphemism
for looking down their noses. Those politically correct nitwits have
their heads buried in the sand hoping that you don't cut it off.
There are others
who tolerate your religion but it is only because of your oil. These
are members of the international community who shake your hand and smile
to your face, while at the same time laughing at your tinhorn leaders
behind your back. Let's get this out front. Our contrived respect for
your medieval religion and political systems are just condescension.
You are nothing more than adolescent boys competing with adult men and
women. We tolerate you because of your oil, because of political correctness,
and because of we are also holding out hope that one day you will grow
up. Perhaps we might see a Muslim Martin Luther. Right now you are embarrassment
to the human race.
Let's talk about
your politics. You know you are right about one thing. A theocracy is
better than a democracy. But that is only on paper. It doesn't work
in real life because none of us could live up to those standards. It
especially doesn't work in the Arab and Persian world because you are
the most ungodly people on this planet. Take a lesson from the communists.
It only took them 70 years to figure out that a totalitarian social
utopia does not work. You really have to be a cultural retard to keep
trying to make your system work for the last 1300 years.
You used to be a
proud, sophisticated and educated. But now you don't even own a proper
university. Americans and Brits organized the best universities in your
countries. Your own colleges were once great, but they stopped studying
science in the 8th century because of your superstitious religion. You
must now rely on the technology of the developed west while you continue
to study your Koran. You used to lead the world in mathematics, now
you lead the world in illiteracy.
Let's talk about
your military. Your military is also a farce. 60 million Muslims in
the Middle East have 6 million Jews surrounded and you can't do even
beat them. Sure Israel had European support in the 40s, 50s, and 60s,
and US backing from that point on, but you had Soviet support all along.
Help me do the math here. You invented algebra. 10 to 1 odds against
an enemy that you have surrounded. I just don't understand it. You have
enough money to buy the most modern military equipment in the world
and send your officers to the finest military academies and training
courses. But your armies are still inept. You have no real leadership
and your everyday man is a poor excuse for a soldier. How pathetic.
Since you lack competence and ability you have replaced them with fanaticism
and suicide bombs. Understand this. We have the means to blot you off
of the face of the planet but lack the political will to do so. That
is the only thing keeping you alive. Keep pushing, please. We are patient,
but we have our limits. Any success you have in the war against the
Americans up to this point is only due to our own bumbling, self-imposed
rules of engagement and our lack of political will. Yes we are slow
learners during wartime, look at the Union Army and the Pacific Fleet.
But we always win, that is, unless Democrats are in office.
Do you really want
the US out of the Middle East? Well stop shooting at our soldiers and
killing each other. Our military will think that Iraq is secure, declare
a victory, and pullout. But that isn't what you really want. You need
Americans there. You need them to blame for your problems and you enjoy
killing them.
Do you want Israel
to stop shooting at Palestinians and Hezbollah? Well you have to stop
shooting first. Everybody knows that if Israel stopped shooting there
would not be any peace. While at the same time if the Palestinians and
Hezbollah thugs stopped shooting there would be peace. But you are a
bunch of tyrants who don't want peace. Remember the last Arab who wanted
peace? That was Anwar Sadat of Egypt and you assassinated him. You don't
want peace, you hate yourselves too much and project that hatred of
Jews and
Americans.
If the US left the
Middle East and you were successful in your holocaust of Israel who
would you find to blame?
Muslims, you are
a tribe of self-loathing 8th century tribesmen armed with AK-47s trying
to be relevant in the 21st century. If the US left the Middle East and
you completed you holocaust over Israel you find someone else to blame.
You are a cross between a bumbling Borat and a cutthroat Charles Manson.
Islam is a farce and any thinking person in this world knows this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GET
THE US MILITARY OUT OF SOUTH KOREA NOW!
The Korean War officially
ended with an armistice in 1953 and we have had soldiers stationed in
South Korea ever since. We currently have approximately 30,000 troops
in Korea with a scheduled reduction to about 25,000 sometime in 2008.
Why are they still there? That is two divisions of soldiers who could
be deployed elsewhere, such as Iraq.
The Korean peninsula
has little value for America and it is not worth spending billions of
dollars annually to keep two divisions there. The Cold War is over and
we do not need to fear a communist takeover of Asia anymore. We do not
need to contain China. A land invasion of China is not even feasible
with the current size of our military. We do not need to protect South
Korea from North Korea. The South Koreans have twice the population
and a zillion times the wealth of North Korea. They should be able to
take care of themselves.
Normally, a long-term
withdrawal of troops is the typical manner to conduct a redeployment
like this one. It gives the host country enough time to build their
military forces, and minimize the economic impact of all the departing
dollars. But since we need those soldiers in Iraq now, we need to conduct
a rapid redeployment. We can sign a treaty with South Korea to let them
know that we will come back to protect them if North Korea attacks in
the near future. I know we made a similar guarantee to South Vietnam
in 1973 and then did not keep our promise when North Vietnam attacked
in 1975 (though possibly the result of a planned back-stabbing designed
by Henry Kissinger), but hopefully we have learned our lesson.
The other reason
that we should withdraw is that we do not need the North Korea problem.
If we withdraw from the peninsula, dictator Kim is no longer our trouble.
We do not need to be perpetually blackmailed into sending him grain
and fuel oil each autumn. If we leave the peninsula then he will become
a regional problem and South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan will have
to deal with him. We have been his enabler for years and this has to
stop.
On a side note, this
situation is a good example of why we don't need an armistice in Iraq.
Armistices and cease-fires don't work. North and South Korea are still
at a state of war 50 years after their armistice. An armistice ended
WW I and 20 years later Germany violated it and started WW II. Ceasefires
in the Middle East don't work. There has been Arab-Israeli wars in 1948,
1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006, as well as a perpetual state of warfare
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I know that there is an Israeli-Egyptian
armistice that has been in effect since the late 1970s, but that is
nothing but a bribe. Thanks to former President Jimmy Carter, the US
taxpayers are sending millions of dollars every year to both countries
so they don't attack each other. We can't afford to fund too many armistices.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SOME
SCATTERED THOUGHTS ON THE WAR ON TERROR
Wars are settled
by one side utterly defeating the other side. Not by negotiations. Truces
do not lead to peace, just longer conflicts and more death (Korea, Middle
East). You must engage in a total war that will lead to a total peace.
The reason why the Germans and Japanese stopped fighting in 1945 was
that they were tired of total war. The wars in the Middle East do not
stop because the Israelis and the United States are fighting with constraint.
It sounds cruel, but in the long run total war saves more lives than
it takes. The wars end sooner and you don't have years and years of
guerilla warfare.
The War on Terror
is World War IV. It is the west versus Islamic fascists. We see traditional
fighting raging throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the horn
of Africa. And then we see terrorist attacks in the US, Canada, England,
The Netherlands, Spain, Russia, some former Soviet Republics, and Indonesia.
It is a world war.
What happened to
World War III? The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet
Union will be known in the future as WW III. It lasted from 1945 until
1991. Though some will say that it started in 1918-19 when we sent a
few brigades to fight against the communists on Russian soil. These
US and USSR avoided a head-to-head confrontation after WW II because
they had seen enough blood and destruction. They did not want to go
at it with nuclear weapons. So they fought a series of skirmishes in
the air and on the seas (spy planes, submarines), and used the armies
of other countries (Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Central America)
to fight by proxy. The war went on an on for 40 years because we did
not have a total war. We had a series of presidents who settled on détente.
The war ended when the US finally had a president (Reagan) who knew
that détente was stupid and was brave enough to call out the
Soviets. He knew that we could beat them economically and morally. Communism
was economically and morally bankrupt. He let them know that we were
no longer interested in a truce and that he would do whatever it takes
to make the US the number one power in the world. And since they had
a communist economy built upon a house of cards, they came crashing
down.
The Islamicists are
fighting against the west for three reasons. First, their religion tells
them that they should destroy infidels and establish a world wide Muslim
caliphate. Second we are seeing history repeat itself with the clash
between civilization and barbarians, much like the clash between Rome
and the Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc. Yes, I am calling the Islamicists
barbarians. I don't care if they built great civilizations 2,500 years
ago and invented algebra. Today they have retro'd back to barbarism.
Third, they are frustrated by their ineptitude and inability to establish
themselves as any sort of political or cultural power. Their self-hatred
is manifested in violence against Jews and the west.
The Islamicists know
that they cannot defeat the west in a traditional military battle (They
can't even defeat little ol' Israel.). So they are engaged in a guerilla
war that is called terrorism. These terrorists are supported by Arab
governments and will not end until we subdue more of their governments
and replace them with democracies. Iran or Syria will be next, followed
by Saudi Arabia. This is going to take a long time due to a number of
reasons. First, we are fighting with too many constraints. We don't
want to look like bullies or imperialists. Second, these countries control
the world's oil so they have that ammunition against us. Third, the
liberals in the west do not think there is a war going on. They think
the poor Islamic criminals are just reacting to western pressure. Their
solution to an attack that killed 3,000 Americans is to throw some of
them in jail with Korans, prayer rugs, and halal. Until the liberals
wake up and join us in war, it will be hard to defeat the Muslim fascist
threat to our lives and culture.
What is wrong with
having a strong America as the world's only super power? The world likes
benevolent super powers because many of the world's countries can't
seem to self-govern. Just look at the mess a lot of the countries that
established their independence following WW II are in today. Super powers
tend to bring decades of peace and prosperity. Ancient Greece started
this phenomenon in the west. They were then replaced by Rome. Look how
well the Roman world progressed and prospered during pax Romania. When
Rome fell, no one replaced it. We had the Dark Ages for over 1,000 years
until Great Britain gave us pax Britannia. Then came the US. We had
pax Americana in Europe for 40 years following WW II. Can you name another
period in time where there was peace in Europe for 40 years? I bet you
can't. I think it is time for pax Americana for the whole world.
The military draft-There
will probably never be another draft. If the government tries to impose
one, some pantywaist guy will bring it to court and say that the law
is sexist and women need to be subject to the draft and selective service.
No congressman will vote to change the law and send our daughters to
war like that.
Women at war. Do
you know who Leigh Ann Hester is? Probably not, but I bet you know who
Lynndie England and Jessica Lynch are. SGT Hester, an MP with the Kentucky
Army National Guard, was the first female soldier ever to be awarded
a Silver Star for direct combat with the enemy. EVER! She was awarded
the medal for helping to fight off an insurgent attack on the convoy
she was riding in. Why don't you know who she is? Because she is a hero
and the mainstream media does not want to write any stories about heroes
in our War on Terror. The mainstream media is only interested in military
victims (Lynch) and ne'er-do-wells (England). Can you name any of the
heroes from our War on Terror? Do you remember Congressional Medal of
Honor recipient SFC Paul Smith? It's not really your fault. The mainstream
media (or misleadia) is agenda driven to make this war politically unpopular
for the president. They don't produce reports about our heroes.
Speaking of the mainstream
media and war coverage, did you notice that they dropped their wall-to-wall
coverage of Cindy Sheehan? Don't you wonder why? It is because Mother
Sheehan started speaking out against some of the democrats and their
support of the war (especially Hillary). Mother Sheehan was acceptable
news coverage only when she spoke out against President Bush. But once
she broadened her shot group to include some key democrats, they dropped
their support for her. She was being duped all along.
The next time you
hear someone say, "I don't support the War on Terror, but I support
the troops." Ask them when was the last time they actually did
something to support the troops. Have they taken some spare time between
making signs and protest marching, writing letter to the editor, protesting
recruiting stations, blogging, etc to do anything for the troops? Have
they ever gone to the airport to wish them well as they depart? Have
they sent them a nice letter or care package showing that they care?
Have they done anything for the spouses and children of deployed soldiers?
Have they prayed for them? Have they welcomed the soldiers home? I doubt
it. They may fool themselves with their talk about supporting the troops.
But don't let them fool you. They don't support the troops.
Don't worry about
the silly "President Bush lied" argument, every war of the
last century has had some alarmist screaming about something
WWI- Wilson promised
to keep us neutral.
WWII- FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen.
Korea- Truman did not properly protect South Korea and was caught by
surprise.
Viet Nam- Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Gulf War I-The US ambassadors working for Bush the Elder gave mixed
signals to Saddam which made him think it was okay to invade Kuwait.
Kosovo- Clinton encouraged NATO to be used as an offensive force for
the first time in its history. There were no threats at the time to
any NATO country.
I used to like libertarians
and was leaning in that political direction, but then the War on Terror
started and I saw how kooky they could be with their pacifism.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THE
WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
I was raised a Yankee
and was brainwashed by their version of the "Civil War" which
is found in their redacted history books. I did not realize there was
another version of events until I joined the Army and spent 12 years
in the south; three years in Texas, three years in Kentucky, and 6 years
in Louisiana. Remember, everything you read in school was written by
the victors.
STOP CALLING IT THE CIVIL WAR! IT WAS NOT A CIVIL WAR! A Civil War is
when two or more factions within a country are fighting for political
control of the country. Think about the English Civil War in the middle
of the 17th century or the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, those were
civil wars. The War Between the States was a war of southern secession;
it was not a civil war. The Confederacy did not want to control the
Union. Why did the north decide to call it a civil war when it clearly
wasn't? Were they attempting to justify their aggression? At the time
of the war, a lot of the southern states believed that it was constitutionally
legal for them to secede.
STOP SAYING IT WAS FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY! Quick, name another major war
that was fought over slavery (Bleeding Kansas was not a major war).
Wars are not fought over slavery. The issue of slavery was used by the
north for political purposes (to maintain European neutrality). Lincoln
himself was originally neutral to the slavery issue. His great Emancipation
Proclamation didn't even free the slaves in his own northern slave states
(Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri). It only freed slaves in
areas of the south that were under Union control. The Emancipation Proclamation
has gone down in public opinion as a document that freed the slaves
with Lincoln as the great emancipator. It did not free the slaves, the
13th Amendment did, and that was after Lincoln died.
The issue of slavery in the south was secondary to the issue of states
rights and the money they thought was flowing to Washington. Only a
minority of southerners were slave owners and a slightly larger percentage
benefited directly from slavery. It was only the rich plantation owner
and some on the periphery who profited from slavery. I have seen figures
as low as 25% benefiting from slavery. Do you think that 75% of the
south went to war just to protect slavery? Besides, the morally superior
northeast elitists had their own version of slavery in their factories.
Catholic immigrants, including women and children, were chained to the
factory floor for 12 hours a day, working for pennies an hour, and living
in the slums.
There was a popular saying amongst the opponents of the Vietnam War.
"We destroyed the village in order to save it." Well that
can be said about the War Between the States. Lincoln destroyed the
country in order to save it.
The Gettysburg Address
is undoubtedly one of the greatest political speeches ever. Direct,
terse and effective. But if you look at it closely it contradicts itself.
Lincoln speaks of a sacrosanct government of the people, by the people
and for the people. But weren't Lincoln's own soldiers fighting to prevent
the south from self-determination? The Confederate soldiers were the
ones fighting for the rights of the people.
Let's look at Lincoln's
treatment of other minorities. There were the impressments of newly
arriving Irish immigrants into the army. There was an order signed by
Lincoln for a mass hanging of 38 Sioux Indians after a food riot in
1862. His favorite general (Grant) issued General Order #1 which expelled
Jews from parts of the combat zone. Just don't try to tell me that Lincoln
was a humanitarian, especially when you consider the Union's cruel treatment
of Confederate prisoners of war and Confederate citizens. And while
we are at it, we can mention that he suspended habeas corpus for his
own citizens. What makes this guy such a great president?
Oh let's not forget
to thank President Lincoln for the country's first income tax. And while
we are at it, let's thank him for centralizing political power in Washington
D.C. So much for federalism. I never understood Lincoln's popularity.
How could a president who had a War of Succession occur on his watch
be considered as one of our best? True, the war had been bubbling for
years, but he owned it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were killing
each other and large parts of the south were razed.
I saw a bumper sticker with a confederate flag. It said, "Get over
it, you lost." That is elitist ignorance. The south knew they were
licked and quit fighting. There was never a concerted guerilla war effort.
What the south was so resentful about all those years was Reconstruction.
If you look at Reconstruction, do you really blame the south for being
resentful to the north?
RECONSTRUCTION
Reconstruction was a disaster. It gave us the first presidential impeachment,
the KKK, and Plessy vs. Ferguson.
The 14th Amendment was designed to assimilate blacks into society. But
if you read the entire amendment it was also meant to punish former
Confederate soldiers. If you pay attention to the last line it states
that you cannot serve in government if you had given aid or comfort
to the enemies. Does that still apply today? I could think of a few
politicians it might apply to.
Reconstruction compounded the animosity that already existed between
the black and white southerners. The punishment started a cycle of southern
resentfulness, which resulted in further punishment. The north sent
troops into the south to protect the former slaves but this opened the
doors to exploitation by the carpetbaggers. The southerners refused
to cooperate when the north exploited the southern economy and northern
money went to develop the west instead of rebuilding the south. This
caused further antipathy and the cycle repeated itself over and over
again even up until Roosevelt's New Deal. Though Roosevelt spent federal
money on the Tennessee Valley Authority, and built up military bases
in the south, most of his money went west to buy votes. Did you ever
wonder why western states modernized rapidly and caught up with the
northeast while the southern states remained economically stagnant?
You still don't think the southerners were exploited? Take a look at
mine workers in this country. Miners in the western part of this country
lived a middle class lifestyle. Miners in Appalachia lived in the third
world.
The white southerners were resentful of this treatment and blamed it
on the presence of policies designed to protect the former slaves. They
often used this excuse to commit violence against the blacks, which
is unacceptable, but please understand this was a reaction to failed
government policies.
Northern elitists did not start thinking about black rights until the
blacks started moving to the northern cities during the industrial 40
and 50s. Then it became a national problem and the north started paying
attention to black rights. Prior to this they were just one of the two
subspecies of people living in the old confederacy. They were just used
as needed as minstrels, jazz singers, maids and porters.
Reconstruction created a dual class of second-class citizens. Poor blacks
and rednecks. The reason some of them hate each other is because they
are so much alike. They have their own language, large extended families
(clans), they were more interested in work than school, and they both
distrust northerners.
Once Reconstruction ended with the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s
and 1960s, look how quickly the south modernized.
The KKK was an evil organization but it wasn't founded solely for the
purpose of intimidating and lynching blacks. It also served a role of
resisting northern exploitation by the carpetbaggers. The Klan eventually
died away, thank God, but managed to be reborn through Hollywood and
D.W. Griffith's film "The Birth of a Nation." Hollywood made
the Klan en vogue and patriotic. What do you think George Clooney would
think of that? The Klan was admired by presidents like Wilson and Harding
and we even had Klansmen on the Supreme Court. I do not defend the KKK
or anything they stand for (other than their scorn for northeast liberalism)
but let's get educated and understand what really happened.
Lynchings in this
country peaked around 1900 and were quite rare by the 1940s. One lynching
is too many, but there is an impression that the south was just one
big lynching ground until the 1950s and 60s.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Many Americans believe
that Civil Rights grew solely out of the works of people such as Martin
Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. It is much more complicated. Race relations
had been changing for years. The growth of military bases throughout
the south in the 1930s helped to expose northerners to the south. Black
laborers migrated to northern cities to fill the factories as the white
Americans were drafted into the war in the 1940s. The Eisenhower interstate
highway program also helped to make travelers from the north and south
integrate. I don't want to understate the sacrifice of many blacks (and
whites) during the Civil Rights movement, but larger events were at
work.
If southerners are
the biggest enemies of the blacks, why were the biggest race riots in
northern and western cities? When you mention race riots everybody automatically
thinks of Birmingham. The white police force their committed crimes
against the blacks and other freedom riders, but where were the major
riots of the 1960s? Weren't they in Newark, Detroit, and Los Angeles?
And why did these riots take place right after Civil Rights and Voting
Rights laws were passed? Do blacks have a propensity to riot?
The mainstream media mischaracterizes the south. Their idea of the south
comes from one snapshot from Birmingham in the early 60s. If you travel
extensively in the south you will see mostly a peaceful mixing of races.
The only state in the south that gets attention from the mainstream
media is Florida and that is because of its political power in national
elections. All last summer we were inundated with an army of news reporters
covering hurricanes in Florida that never amounted to much. Finally
a real hurricane hits the Mississippi delta and the national media was
very slow to react. That was the main reason the whole country reacted
slowly, no news was coming out of there.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THE
UN SPRINGS INTO ACTION
The UN is a corrupt
and inept bureaucracy with no oversight or accountability. They are
so ham-fisted they would fail a peacekeeping mission to Lancaster County
Pennsylvania (Home of the Amish.). Besides their unaccountability and
secrecy, their next biggest problem is their morally superior, non-judgmental
policy of admitting tyrannical members. They idealistically hope that
this policy will help these countries transcend tyranny and grow into
democracy. But the reality is that it only serves to protect and bolster
these brutal regimes.
The UN claims to
promote just and ethical behavior but since they don't make any conditions
along these lines for membership, they have no standards and they are
doomed to fail. They take all types of governments and this results
in the prevalence of the lowest common ethical denominator.
The corruption and ineptitude of the UN is well known. But since the
liberals consider it to be a valuable diplomatic forum, everyone pretends
that the shortcomings don't exist. Those shortcomings do make a difference.
Especially to the US where we exchange one seat on the 15-member Security
Council and one seat in the 191-member General Assembly in exchange
for providing 20-25% of the budget, and a permanent home in prime New
York City real estate.
The UN is supposed
to respond to world crises. Here I have mapped out their typical response.
Let's say two central African or Asian dictatorships go to war. There
is widespread genocide, torture, rape, property crimes, etc. The United
Nations immediately springs into action with their 30-step plan for
peace.
1. Call a meeting
of the Security Council.
2. Condemn the United States and Israel.
3. Call a meeting of the General Assembly.
4. Schedule a weeklong meeting.
5. Immediately get fleet of limousines ready to pick up delegates for
meeting.
6. Make reservations at a luxury hotel.
7. Hold the weeklong meeting.
8. Consult with human rights team made up of delegates from such stalwart
human rights supporters as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba and Rwanda. They
will try to determine if there were human rights violations.
9. Become paralyzed in debate as a bunch of genocidal, torturing, raping,
looting, slavery supporting totalitarian governments decide whether
there are human rights abusing going on in the new war.
10. Delegations start maneuvering to find the best political decisions
they should make based on what is best for their own country and the
UN. Damn the refugees.
11. Issue a Security Council resolution ordering both dictatorships
to stop fighting.
12. Resolution is ignored. Issue a new one with harsh language.
13. 2nd resolution is ignored. Issue a third resolution with really
harsh language.
14. Hope the problem will go away by itself.
15. Threaten sanctions.
16. Commit to sanctions that don't harm the dictatorial leaders, only
their citizens.
17. Find a way to secretly profit from the sanctions (e.g. oil for food
scandal).
18. Threaten to send peacekeepers.
19. Find the most incompetent, morally corrupt peacekeepers from your
tyrannical member nations.
20. Deploy peacekeepers.
21. Peacekeepers sit around idly and get bored as war and war crimes
rage around them. They typically bide their spare time with looting,
gang rapes and child prostitution.
22. Peacekeepers are threatened by one of the armies. They depart.
23. Issue a glowing press release over what the peacekeepers accomplished
before they were forced out.
24. Issue another resolution.
25. Wait and pray for the US to take action to end the embarrassment.
26. Once the US takes action doing the dirty work no one else wants
to do, declare the US actions as rash and unilateral.
27. Once peace starts to break out, send peacekeepers and bureaucrats
back.
28. Take credit for the result of US actions.
29. Hand out vigil candles and flags. Hold a parade and release a bunch
of white doves. This will prevent future wars.
30. Ask the US to broker a permanent peace agreement. This treaty will
actually just consist of a huge annual bribe that is funded by US taxpayers.
The US is the only
organization on this planet that can guarantee peace somewhere. The
US, though far from perfect, has done more good and more right than
any nation in history, and in the shortest time. We have been able to
do this because of our prosperity. A prosperity that is due to our political
and economic freedom, and our military might. The very ideals that are
consistently criticized and threatened by our own liberals, envious
foreign powers, and the UN itself.
The consistent reaction
to US power has been public lecture and condemnation by an institution
that embraces moral relativism. The UN is simply incapable of distinguishing
right from wrong. They realize that we are their competition for world
dominance and they want to drag us down because they can never match
our success. But once we succumb to the UN, civilization will be doomed.
Finally, here is
one step that might help stop the UN from bashing the US. Why don't
we have the UN move its headquarters each year to a new country? We
don't have to move the entire kit and caboodle. That would be too expensive
and too inefficient. We will just move the Secretary-General and his
staff. We would have to limit the move to say 100 bureaucrats, so his
pet psychologist, masseuse, personal trainer, self-esteem coach and
others may have to stay. Give them an office building in another UN
nation. We can start with Azerbaijan or Eritrea. Then we can see how
much they actually appreciate the US.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Department
of Defense rejected MRE ideas in 2005:
1. CL Pizza
2. APF Tea
3. Fear Factor Stew
4. Patrol Cap Salad Oil
5. Porto-pottyroni
6. Cathole Cookies
7. Mop Bucket Milk
8. Trench Bread
9. Skoal-a-cola
10. LOGPAC Cheese
11. Pungi Steak
12. NB Seafood
13. Applesauce Con Carne
14. Pro-mask Gum
15. Napalm Salsa
16. Abu Graib Licorice Whip
17. Lindy England Clam Chowder
18. Drill Sergeant Breath Mints
19. Dehydrated Crackers
20. Spamcicle
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12 Days of Christmas in Baghdad
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
my Army gave to me,
Twelve bottled waters,
Eleven snipers sniping,
Ten ali-babas stealing,
Nine journalists lying,
Eight mortars falling,
Seven suicide bombers,
Six sand storms rising,
Five IEDs,
Four month extension,
Three car bombs,
Two bags of mail,
And more armor for my HMMWV
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No, Iraq is not like Vietnam. Yes, Iraq
is like Vietnam.
I found 22 ways the wars are dissimilar and 15 ways that they are similar.
(A long post but a quick read.)
NO. Iraq is not like Vietnam.
1. What US leaders got us into the war?
a. Vietnam- Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.
Did you say Republican President Nixon? Liberal revisionist history
has painted this war as Nixon's war.
b. Iraq- Republican President George W. Bush.
2. How did the war start?
a. Vietnam- The US slowly increased their military
presence in South Vietnam during the Cold War in order to stop the spread
of communism. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson fabricated the Gulf
of Tonkin incident to justify a full-scale war.
b. Iraq- Islamofascists slowly increased worldwide
terrorist attacks against the US and other western governments. After
9/11 President Bush justified a full-scale war based on Iraqi support
of al-Qaeda and Iraqi possession and historic use of weapons of mass
destruction.
3. Who ended the war?
a. Vietnam- Republican President Richard Nixon authorized
peace talks and withdrew US forces in 1973 with a promise to the South
Vietnamese government to provide financial and military equipment if
North Vietnam attacked again. North Vietnam attacked again in 1975 and
the US Congress refused to send the support. This doomed our South Vietnamese
ally.
b. Iraq- Unknown at this time
4. Goal of US involvement.
a. Vietnam- To contain communism. Failed.
b. Iraq- Regime change. Succeeded.
5. Enemy goals.
a. Vietnam-The communists wanted the reunification
of Vietnam a communist dictatorship.
b. Iraq- Terrorists want to kill Americans and other
westerners while spreading Islamofascism. (If their goal were for the
Americans to leave, they would just simply have to stop attacking. The
Americans would assume that the country was secure and depart)
6. Was there a traditional military victory?
a. Vietnam- No. Political (not strategic) decision
was made not to conduct a ground attack and occupation of North Vietnam.
b. Iraq- Yes. The US occupied Iraq in a historically
successful military victory.
7. Did we kill or capture the enemy's murderous dictator?
a. Vietnam- No. Ho Chi Minh died a natural death in
1969.
b. Iraq- Yes. Saddam Hussein, who promised to fight
to the death and encouraged (death threats) his subordinates to do the
same, surrendered as he was found cowering in a hole in the ground.
8. Bombing campaign
a. Vietnam-Conducted carpet-bombing of South Vietnam,
North Vietnam, and Cambodia resulting in indiscriminate collateral damage
of public life support infrastructure, buildings, homes, and croplands,
causing widespread civilian death.
b. Iraq- Precision bombing minimized collateral damage
and civilian deaths.
9. What happened after the bombing campaign?
a. Vietnam- The US departed the country.
b. Iraq- The US rebuilt the country.
10. US KIAs.
a. Vietnam- 5,000/yr
b. Iraq- <1,000/yr.
11. Performance of National Guard soldiers.
a. Vietnam-The Guard had a reputation of poor performance.
It was the purported refuge for slackers, rich kids and draft dodgers.
b. Iraq- The Guard is performing with distinction and
honor.
12. Composition of US military forces.
a. Vietnam- Despite liberal revisionists' history,
only 25-33% of the soldiers in Vietnam were draftees. That means it
was about a 70% volunteer force.
b. Iraq. 100% volunteer force.
13. Type of war fought.
a. Vietnam-This was an initial war against insurgent
forces that grew into a conventional war.
b. Iraq-This was an initial war against conventional
forces that grew into a war against insurgents.
14. Insurgency support.
a. Vietnam- Insurgents used intimidation to garner
widespread popular support from a homogenous (mostly Vietnamese) population.
b. Iraq- Insurgents have narrow popular support from
a divisive (Shi'a, Kurd, Sunni) population and are becoming less easily
intimidated.
15. Superpower backing.
a. Vietnam-The North Vietnamese were supported with
men, money, equipment, ammunition, and training from China and the Soviet
Union.
b. Iraq-The terrorists do not have the backing of any
major countries. Just Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.
16. Behavior of former presidents during the war.
a. Vietnam- Former Presidents Truman (d 1972) and Eisenhower
(d 1969) maintained the dignity of former presidents and did not speak
out publicly against their successors and the war.
b. Iraq- Both former democratic Presidents Carter and
Clinton have cast aside all the dignity of the office of the president
and broken the unspoken rule about not publicly speaking out against
their successors and the conduct of the war.
17. Behavior of the media.
a. Vietnam- The old, liberal mainstream media made
up of network television, large city newspapers, and weekly newsmagazines
wrote one-sided versions of the war and fully supported the liberal
protesters.
b. Iraq- The new media, made up of talk radio, cable
television and the Internet, counter the old media and have given Americans
another side of the story. This includes the make up of the protester
organizations (socialists, communists, useful idiots, anarchists), and
their goals (appeasement, cowardice, hate America first)
18. Type of government the US helped to install.
a. Vietnam- During the war years the US helped to install a series of
illegitimate South Vietnamese leaders.
b. Iraq- After the end of the conventional war the
US helped to install legitimately elected democratic leaders.
19. Historic perspective of the war.
a. Vietnam- Vietnam was a battle fought between western
powers and communism during the Cold War (World War III)
b. Iraq- Iraq is a battle fought between western powers
and Islamofascism during the larger war against militant Islam (World
War IV)
20. Results of the Cut and Run Diplomacy.
a. Vietnam-A premature withdrawal in Vietnam resulted
in communist instituted mass murder, torture, and re-education camps.
The situation was so horrendous that thousands of Vietnamese desperately
tried to leave the country in unseaworthy boats (The Boat People). Preferring
their chances of drowning, starvation, shark attacks and pirates to
encounters with communists.
b. Iraq- Unknown. Will probably lead to a bloody, religious
civil war between Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, and the establishment of
a worldwide headquarters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
21. Local legacy of cut and run diplomacy.
a. Vietnam- Totalitarian government. No democratic
elections 40 years after war began.
b. Iraq- Democratic elections less than 3 years after
the start of the war.
22. Worldwide legacy of cut and run diplomacy.
a. Vietnam- Emboldened communist revolutions in Southeast
Asia, central Africa, and Central America during the 1970s. Established
a cut and run trend for American forces (Beirut 1983, Somalia 1993).
b. Iraq- Unknown. Will probably embolden an Islamofascist
global jihad.
YES. Iraq is just like Vietnam.
1. The US continues its history of trying to export freedom.
a. Vietnam- War causes liberals to reveal their prejudice.
They do not believe that giving Asians democracy and liberty is worth
American lives.
b. Iraq- War causes liberals to reveal their prejudice.
They do not believe that giving Muslims democracy and liberty is worth
American lives.
2. War against totalitarianism.
a. Vietnam- US fought to contain the worldwide spread
of communist totalitarianism.
b. Iraq- US fight to contain the worldwide spread of
Islamofascist totalitarianism.
3. Enemy strategy.
a. Vietnam-The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong cannot
defeat the US forces. They hang on until the liberal media in the US
influence public opinion and cause the withdrawal of military forces
so they can take over.
b. Iraq-The terrorists cannot defeat the US forces.
They hang on until the liberal media in the US influence public opinion
and cause the withdrawal of military forces so they can take over.
4. International Borders.
a. Vietnam- The North Vietnamese military ignores international
borders and uses Laos and Cambodia as a semi-safe haven to attack South
Vietnam
b. Iraq- Terrorists are crossing international borders
into Iraq from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
5. Training allied armies.
a. Vietnam- Despite liberal media and historians painting
the South Vietnamese army as incompetent, they were trained into an
effective fighting force by 1973.
b. Iraq- Iraqi army and security forces are quickly
becoming a stable and competent fighting force.
6. War crimes.
a. Vietnam- North Vietnamese soldiers and civilians
routinely torture prisoners. The Viet Cong routinely murder civilians.
American war crimes are few and far between. Despite all of this, the
liberal media and historians ignore the major crimes and focus all of
their effort on condemning, humiliating, and discrediting the Americans
soldier.
b. Iraq- Terrorists routinely murder civilians and
behead prisoners. American war crimes are few and far between. Despite
all of this, the liberal media and historians ignore the major crimes
and focus all of their effort on condemning, humiliating, and discrediting
the American soldier.
7. Liberal Protesters.
a. Vietnam- Performed as useful idiots for the communist
but no real effect on the outcome of the war. Most protest ended in
1971. US involvement lasted until 1973. In fact, they probably prolonged
it by enabling our enemy.
b. Iraq- Performed as useful idiots for the terrorists,
but have had no real effect on the outcome of the war. In fact, they
are probably prolonging the war by enabling our enemy.
8. Protesters and the soldiers.
a. Vietnam- Protesters hate the soldiers because they
remind them of their own cowardice
b. Iraq- Protesters hate the soldiers because they
remind them of their own cowardice.
9. Liberal Protesters' principles.
a. Vietnam- None. Protest by liberal college students
was sporadic and unorganized during the first part of the war. They
had their deferments and the draft did not affect them. Widespread protest
began around 1969 when the draft lottery was instituted and the liberals
lost their college deferments. They suddenly became organized protesters.
b. Iraq- None. Liberal protesters claimed to be anti-war
but they are mainly anti-American. At the start of the war they offered
to become human shields for Saddam to discourage US bombing. In late
2003 when the terrorists started using roadside bombs, no protesters
offered to go to Iraq and act as human shields for the American soldiers
to discourage that type of bombing.
10. Mainstream Media and Hollywood.
a. Vietnam- Against the war, demoralizing the troops,
empowering the enemy
b. Iraq- Against the war, demoralizing the troops,
empowering the enemy
11. Sunshine Patriots.
a. Vietnam- Unprincipled liberal and moderate politicians
initially support the war. When public opinion sours, they drop their
support and start protesting, thinking ahead to the next election.
b. Iraq- Unprincipled liberal and moderate politicians
initially support the war. When public opinion sours, they drop their
support and start protesting, thinking ahead to the next election.
12. Liberal politicians' strategy.
a. Vietnam-The democrats believe that a pacifist approach
and an American defeat in Vietnam will be helpful for the 1972 presidential
election. First they try to run a racist Governor George Wallace of
Alabama who is shot during the primaries. Then they run an ultra liberal
Senator George McGovern of South Dakota who loses to President Nixon
49 states to 1 (Massachusetts).
b. Iraq-The democrats have declared the war as unnecessary
and illegitimate. The more American soldiers who die the better. That
is why they keep an up to the minute headcount and turn milestone deaths
into slogans. They want the US to cut and run. Preferably before the
2006 elections, and definitely before the 2008 presidential elections.
13. Returning Veterans.
a. Vietnam- Liberal media and historians paint them
as maladjusted, homeless drug addicts despite the fact that an overwhelming
majority of well adjusted contributors to society
b. Iraq- Liberal media paint them as maladjusted, angry
and betrayed veterans despite their record reenlistment rates.
14. The French Connection (This website is a proud
supporter of French bashing).
a. Vietnam- Southeast Asian communist leaders from
several countries were educated largely in French schools.
b. Iraq- France sold arms and intel to Iraq right up
until the start of the war. French opposition to the war was not based
on principle. It was based on French fear that their military aide to
Iraq and their part in the United Nations' oil-for-food scandal would
be exposed after the US victory.
15. Liberal Prejudice
a. Vietnam-Liberals do not think giving Asians democracy
is worth the price of American lives. Asians are not worthy of democracy.
b. Iraq- Liberals do not think giving Arabs democracy
is worth the price of American lives. Arabs are not worthy of democracy.
