Military

LIGHTNING TROOP, 3d SQUADRON, 2d ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT OEF-OIF OCT 2003-SEP 2004

I recently put together an unofficial history of my troop's activities
during the Iraq war for someone who was working on a 2d Armored
Cavalry history website. I thought I would share it with others on my
website

Lightning Troop, 3/2 ACR deployed to Camp Doha, Kuwait on October 1, 2002 for a six-month rotation in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom. Lightning replaced Bull Troop, 1/2 ACR, who had deployed in
April of that year. Lightning’s mission was to provide convoy escort
to US forces who were moving from the port in Kuwait City to staging
areas near the Iraq border.

While at Camp Doha, Lightning was given three additional missions.
They assumed the security for the camp itself, detached 1st Platoon
(+) to Camp Doha, Qatar for a 45 day security mission, and detached 2d Platoon to provide security for nearby Camp Udari, for approximately 60 days. Lightning was also augmented with an MP platoon to help with their growing schedule of convoy escort missions, and were also bumped up with a platoon from the Marine Corps Reserve during a particular port security mission.

On March 21st, 2003 the ground war began and Lightning Troop watched the war develop on their television sets at Camp Doha, Kuwait. Each day 6-10 Scud missile alerts kept them on their toes and they spent a few hours each day in MOPP 4. The sirens soon became routine and bothersome and the troop was only reminded of the reality of the situation when an occasional nearby Patriot missile was launched to intercept the Scuds. The Scud alerts died down as US forces made their way deeper into Iraq.

The military convoys that were supplying the 3d Infantry Division were
starting to get ambushed on their long drive north along Main Supply
Route (MSR) Tampa. The Coalition Forces Land Component Command
(CFLCC) located at Camp Doha realized they had an underutilized Light
Cavalry Troop nearby and gave Lightning Troop the mission to join an
MP battalion at the border and start convoy security missions.
Lightning Troop loaded up their HMMWVs with gear and ammunition and headed north to the Iraqi border on March 27th.

Lightning Troop arrived at Convoy Support Center (CSC) Navistar at the Abdali-Safwan border crossing and was placed under the command of the 504th MP Battalion out of FT Lewis, WA. Their mission was to escort convoys along the MSR from CSC Navistar to various Logistic Supply Areas (LSA) up to 120 miles into Iraq. This mission made Lightning Troop the first element of the Regiment to enter into Iraq. The attacks on these convoys halted as soon as Lightning Troop began their escort mission. When the troop was not conducting escorts, they performed an in-depth route reconnaissance of MSR Tampa and destroyed abandoned Iraqi tanks, artillery pieces and anti-aircraft guns which were still trained on the route, and if reoccupied, would have been deadly to the supply convoys.

The Regimental Tactical Command Post (TAC CP or TAC) and 2d Squadron arrived a couple of weeks later and Lightning’s Commander and First Sergeant gave a brief welcome to the Regimental Commander, Colonel Terry Wolff, as he and 2d Squadron sped through on their way north to a mission with the 82d Airborne Infantry Division.

As the war progressed, Lightning moved further north along MSR Tampa. The troop stopped briefly at LSA Cedar and the Iraqi Tallil Air Force Base before establishing another base of operation at LSA Scania. AT LSA Scania Lightning’s mission changed to setting up traffic control points, and conducting area reconnaissance missions and presence patrols around the nearby villages. The troop took several prisoners including members of the Fedayeen, Ba'ath party officials, and fleeing Iraqi soldiers. They confiscated weapons and ammunition and during one mission recovered $30,000 in US currency. Currency that was most likely intended as a bounty reward for the killing of US soldiers.

The troop stayed at LSA Scania for three weeks. Word finally came at
the end of April to proceed to the Regimental TAC inside the old
United Nations compound in Baghdad. After a 48-hr rest, which included showers for the first time in over a month, Lightning received a mission to join TF 3-7 Infantry, 1st Brigade, 3d Infantry Division. Lightning’s mission was to secure four zones of the city in order to deter paramilitary activities, enforce the law, and apprehend looters. The four zones were over half of the geographical area that was assigned to TF 3-7 which was composed of two mechanized infantry companies, an engineer company, and Lightning Troop.

Lightning Troop moved to their new home at the old Iraqi War College
and set up camp occupying several buildings and making life as
comfortable as possible. The rest of the Regiment arrived and the Air
Squadron and Support Squadron established their base camps alongside of Lightning Troop at the War College. Mail started to flow more regularly and the troop got one hot meal a day and plenty of fruit.

The presence patrols were stressful, yet very productive. The general
population appreciated the soldiers, but hostile paramilitary forces
would occasionally fire upon the patrols and engage in brief
skirmishes. Lightning Troop arrested scores of looters and other
criminals, and confiscated over 400 military weapons and countless
rounds of ammunition and small explosives. Lightning Troop made a
definite impact as crime and anti-US activities in their zones
diminished. The troopers responded magnificently during several
direct fire engagements. The troopers also left a positive impact on
the civilian population. They guarded public utilities, assisted in
the start up of an elementary school, and provided first aid countless
times for everything from traffic accidents to gun shot wounds.

At the beginning of June the order finally came for Lightning troop to
reattach to 3d Squadron. LTC Robert Burns, CSM Philip Johndrow, and
the rest of the Wolfpack welcomed the troop to their new location in
the Green Zone located in Saddam's Presidential Palace District.
Their new mission was to escort the Coalition Provisional Authority as
they drove around Iraq conducting the administrative tasks necessary
to start rebuilding the country. The same week that Lightning Troop
started their new mission the Regiment received its new commander, COL Bradley May.

Lightning’s greatest danger at this point was summertime heat inBaghdad. Temperatures that reached 130 degrees meant that the
soldiers in body armor were reaching the limit of human endurance and minor heat injuries were part of the everyday activities. As summer
slowly turned to fall, the paramilitaries switched tactics and
Lightning faced a new enemy tactic, Improvised Explosive Devices
(IEDs). One Lightning Troop mission was struck and fortunately
escaped with only one minor injury.

Lightning Troop continued that mission until they were redeployed home in September of 2003 after completing a year in theater. The troop served admirably through Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and returned with all of their soldiers, and three Purple Hearts.

The success of the troop was due primarily to the leadership of the
Staff Sergeants and Sergeants who made daily tactical decisions while
conducting literally hundreds of two-vehicle convoy security missions.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Berlin Wall

November 9, 2009 is the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

The fall of the wall started with several events over the summer of
1989. I was stationed in West Germany at the time close to the border
(Wildflecken) and either witnessed these events or saw much of them on live television. In August, Hungary had opened its border with
Austria, and the East Germans who were vacationing in Hungary flowed into Austria. This was followed by a lessening of travel restrictions by Czechoslovakia, and in September, protests started in East Germany.

On November 9, 1989, a series of miscommunications within the East
German government and their Berlin Wall security led to the massing of tens of thousands of East German citizens at the checkpoints. The
caged citizens were under the impression that they were going to be
freed, just as those who had been vacationing in Hungary, and by this
point, no one had the political nerve to turn them away. The victims
of totalitarianism soon rushed across the border and in the days
following this mass exodus of East Germans, many others appeared at
the wall and started using sledgehammers to break it up and collect
souvenirs.

As I said I was stationed in West Germany at the time. I had finished
a month long border duty tour in the month of July and watched with a
lot of curiosity when East Germans started showing up in West Germany driving their government built Trabant automobiles with their smoky two-stroke engines (That should serve as a warning to the USgovernment owned autombobile business.). I was in a military school in Hohenfels, West Germany during the month of November and did not get back up to see the border until mid-December. Most of the fence between the two former countries had been torn down and carted away. All of the East German guard towers had been vandalized and gutted, and I actually saw an East German selling bratwurst out of a military vehicle (BMP fighting vehicle) at a former border crossing point.

Germany will be holding a celebration on November 9th of this year and President Obama will not be there. He had time to visit Berlin as a
candidate and also visited back in June during his “America
apologizes” world tour (where he was given an official invitation to
attend the wall celebration) but evidently feels that the anniversary
of the biggest mass liberation of people in the history of mankind is
not important enough for him to visit. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton will probably be there along with former President George H
Bush. Why can’t President Obama attend this historic event?

There are two reasons. First, recognizing this event would bring
attention to the west’s defeat of communism. The White House if now
full of socialists and totalitarians who do not want to commemorate
this fact. Second, this was a Reagan victory and the Democrats cannot
bring themselves to memoralize him. Like-minded liberal historians
are also reluctant to give him any credit. They want to give all of
the credit to Mikhail Gorbachev and his glasnost policy. But this
policy was forced on Gorbachev by the iron triangle of President
Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul
II. The only thing Gorbachev deserves credit for is being smart
enough to realize that the end of the Soviet Union was coming and it
was up to him to end it peacefully by preventing communist hardliners
within his country from starting a bloody crackdown.

It is a shame that President Obama the “uniter” cannot lead a
celebration of this event for all Americans. The fall of the wall was
a symbol of the end of the longest war in American history, the
40-year Cold War.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

BOOK REVIEW: Savage Wars of Peace-Max Boot

This is an excellent book about the “little” wars in our history that most Americans don’t know too much about. Since our founding, we have been among the world’s peacekeepers. Here is a list of wars from his book and some comments. This is a list of international conflicts, he did not cover the Indian Wars.

1801_1805 - Barbary Wars The reason why the US Navy was created was problems with Muslim pirates in the 1790s.

1813 - Marquesas Islands - The US Navy skirmished with natives on this French Polynesian chain

1815 - Barbary Wars - As soon as the War of 1812 was over we returned to attack the pirates once again..

1818 – A rogue General Andrew Jackson invades Spanish Florida and claims it for the US

1823_1825 - Pirates of the Caribbean

1820s - Our Navy continued to battle pirates in the South Pacific and around the Greek Islands, attempts to suppress the African slave trade, and finds themselves involved in a minor involvement in the Argentine-British Falklands dispute

1830s - The Navy briefly battled Sumatran pirates

1850s - The Navy was briefly involved in the Taiping Rebellion and Arrow War in China

1871 - The Navy attacks some forts in Korea after a US ship was seized and the crew killed

Roll up of additional military landings in Central and South America in the 19th century

Argentina 1833, 1852, 1890

Peru 1835

Nicaragua 1852, 1853, 1854, 1896, 1899

Uruguay 1855, 1858, 1868,

Mexico 1870

Chile 1891

Columbia/Panama 1860, 1873, 1885, 1895

1891 - Samoan pirates

1899 - The Philippine War (A war against Philippine natives following the 1898 war with Spain, which gave us the islands)

1900 - The Boxer Rebellion in China

1901_1941 - The US was involved with many skirmishes in China, particularly after the power vacuum that occurred after the fall of their imperial system in 1912.

1900, 1906, 1912, 1917, 1922 Cuba

1903 - Limited war against Columbia in support of Panamanian rebels (We wanted a canal)

1909 - Nicaragua

1914 - Brief involvement in Mexican Civil War

1915_1934 - Stability operations in Haiti

1916_1924 - Stability operations in the Dominican Republic

1916_17 - Mexico (retaliation for Mexican border raids)

1918_1920-Russia We sent Army troops into Russia during the power vacuum that followed the Bolshevik Revolution. We sent one brigade to Murmansk and two brigades to Vladivostok. A read an excellent book about this war called “When Hell Froze Over” by E..M. Halliday

1926_1933 – Nicaragua, fighting the original Sandinistas

Following the excellent summary of the Vietnam War the book sort of trails off into analysis, though it is good analysis. He accurately criticizes the Powell Doctrine as not always being practical

Here are some other “limited wars” I wished he had gone further into.

1958 - Lebanon Crisis

1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis

1965 - Dominican Republic War

1970s_ today – Our various war on drugs efforts in Central and South America with Special Forces, CIA, DEA and others

1980s - Various bombings and dogfights with Libya

1982_1983 - Lebanon

1983 - Grenada

1987_1988 - The Persian Gulf Tanker War with Iran

1989 - Panama

1991 - Iraq War

1992 - Somalia

1993 - Bosnia

1994 - Haiti

Boot ends the book with a commendable defense of the concept of Pax Americana. We do need to be the world’s policemen. Much like other historic world powers (Rome and Great Britain- though much of what they did was self-serving), someone has to be strong enough to fight the ever-present barbarians. My view is that the barbarians for the 21st century will be militant Islamists.

My views on the Powell Doctrine

The US must not commit military forces unless it is in defense of our vital national interests or those of our allies- I disagree. Someone needs to be the world’s police force

If troops are committed it must be a whole hearted effort intent on winning- That is obviously true

The armed forces should have clearly defined military and political objectives, which must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary- I agree

There must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and Congress- I disagree. Our leaders must have the political courage to make unpopular decisions

The commitment of the forces must be a last resort-True, but don’t be afraid to pull the trigger when the time comes. The liberals were always asking for more evidence before we invaded Iraq, but they could never tell us what that evidence would be.

An exit strategy- This will always be a moving target in warfare. Once a war starts it tend to evolve into something we did not expect. We only get a good final analysis after looking at them through the lens of history. World War II is always considered to be a good war because the exit strategy seemed to be the surrender of Germany and Japan. But just imagine if there had been a different outcome in Europe. What if Hitler had been assassinated in 1944 and the German high command decided to make peace with the US and we joined forces to stop the Soviets ferom dominating Eastern Europe for the next 50 years.

Get the troops out quickly- I am not sure if this was part of the original doctrine or it had been added, but that is a bad idea. The power vacuum that exists in a country following a war breeds all sorts of barbarians like the Taliban and Somali warlords. Look at our history, when we pull soldiers out, the situation goes to Hell and we usually have to return. When we stay (Korea, Germany, Japan, the Confederacy), the situation tends to stabilize.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MEMORIAL DAY 2009

MEMORIAL DAY 2009

For everything there is a season

And a time for every matter under heaven

A time to be born, and a time to die

A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted

A time to kill, and a time to heal

A time to break down

and a time to build up

A time to weep

and a time to laugh

A time to mourn

and a time to dance

A time to throw away stones

and a time to gather stones together

A time to embrace

And a time to refrain from embracing

A time to seek

and a time to lose

A time to keep

and a time to throw away

A time to tear

and a time to sew

A time to keep silence

and a time to speak

A time to love

and a time to hate

A time for war

and a time for peace
-Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Something Ain't Right Military (I Served in the US Army for 20 years, 9 months and 22 days) My Military Career