Barack Hussein Obama is currently in Iraq (he finally got some chutzpah, I suppose because he is too afraid of losing votes by not going). Now that he is there, a lot of drum banging will begin, and you can bet it will all be shoved in our faces on the televised news. Heck, three news anchors are traveling with him. (Now can you imagine that since the democrats were the ones who scream wildly about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine in the news media - what hypocrites!) Back to Barack. He is is talking pullout of troops on a fast schedule, and he is also talking about introducing a surge of troops to Afghanistan. Funny isn't it - how not too long ago Barack hypocrite Hussein Obama voted against the troop surge for Iraq saying a troop surge would not work, and now he is ready to fully endorse surges over in the war in Afghanistan by sending a troop surge to that country. I guess he thought that troop surges just wouldn't work in one country because it was spelled I-R-A-Q instead of A-F-G-H-A-N-I-S-T-A-N, I mean what other reason could there be, let alone what sensible reason could there be for how he has changed his view of troop surges?
Now I am not saying we should not be getting out of Iraq. I think if we have done the job, then we should be done with it. My feeling is that it we should make sure it is done, they start to withdraw. As to a timetable, well, I don't know. I think some troops, in the form of advisers, and in the form of air bases, should remain in Iraq as we have had them in Germany and in South Korea, for quite awhile. Most though should be taken out, and that I think should start soon. Then we should hammer Afghanistan. Yet there is a difference in how and why I view it this way from how Barack Hussein Obama views it. He readily admits secretly believes it a great way to get votes, and nothing more from what I can see. I say it to actually win the war on terrorism, and to give our troops a break. In the overall picture, from what I can see liberal Democrats overall don't give a flying flap jack as to the safety of the troops (they attack them over here in protests), curse them at every chance they get, cut back on spending for their protection, and opposed the surge in Iraq that ultimately resulted in saving many lives of our soldiers. No not the opposition, but the surge itself saved lives, so if you are a Demoncrat, please do not twist my words.
I wonder, as to liberal Democrats in general - have you noticed how they have greeted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's suggestion for a near future troop withdrawal, on a timetable, from Iraq. Of course you know that they have greeted it with open arms and a lot of pompous saying 'see we told you that is what was needed' kind of thing. In that light they are praising Maliki as a great leader who knows that which about he speaks. They just cannot praise Maliki enough. Funny though, it was not too long ago that the Democrats overwhelmingly condemned Maliki as little more than a stooge or puppet for the Bush administration, and labelled him as pretty much useless and completely ineffectual as the leader of Iraq. With the liberal Democrats it seems to be they change their minds as the wind blows instead of having some sort of convictions or backbone. The really strange thing is that their constituencies seem to eat it all right up and swallow it hook, line and sinker as being gospel truth. Amazing.
Wasn't it Senator Ted Kennedy who a couple or few years back said something to the effect that Iraq is President George W. Bush's Vietnam? I am pretty sure it was him, and as the facts will show, it seems pretty certain that he was wrong once again.
The Vietnam War took place between 1959 and 1975. For all practical aspects the US involvement in that war took place within those years, but mostly after 1963. In all that time there were the following U.S. casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties):
58,217 killed
153,452 wounded
1,947 missing in action
On average there were over 3,638 U.S. dead per year during the Vietnam Conflict. No that was not really how it worked out, there were much, MUCH, higher casualties in some years than in others, but that is the average over a 16 year conflict. We have, as of today, been at war in Iraq for a total of five years. There have been less than 4,000 U.S. casualties resulting in death in that conflict. As per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war_casualties) there were also: "8,904 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours." As for American deaths in Iraq that is an average of 800 lives lost per year of conflict in Iraq as compared to the average of over 3,638 in Vietnam! The war in Iraq could go on for 11 more years, and if the same casualty rate occurred, it would make the total U.S. deaths in Iraq be about 9,600, which would be nowhere nearly as high as the casualties suffered by the U.S. in Vietnam. So I am wondering how is it that the Iraq Conflict is George W. Bush's Vietnam. There is virtually no comparison in the context in which Kennedy made his claim.
By comparison to Vietnam, the war in Iraq is a classic example of how to fight a war and win with less casualties, and Vietnam is a classic example of how to and stuff a nation's military men into a meat grinder while considering them little more than expendable blobs of flesh.
No war is good, but there are certainly many good causes over which to go to war. We saw such a good reason in WWII. We saw another in Grenada. We saw another in Iraq the first time around. We thought we saw such a good reason in Iraq the second time too. It may be a fact that George W. Bush, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the CIA, Military Intelligence, and their counterparts in many of the nations who are our allies, were all bamboozled by Saddam Hussein into believing he had weapons of mass destruction; and therefore that we went to war in Iraq after having reached wrong conclusions about whether or not we should wage war. Yet there is a good reason/cause for which to remain at war in Iraq.
It is a fact that the Iraq Conflict has been, and remains, a magnet for Islamo Fascists and other terrorists. Many leftists try to get you to believe that this is a bad thing. I think they have missed the importance of this flocking of terrorists. They migrate there in large numbers to attack our forces, and our military men and woman (not boys and girls though many of them left home as little more than that), and while I do not want to see our military people lost in a lost cause, this is no lost cause as some democrats would have you believe. That terrorists congregate in Iraq in large numbers is all the reason necessary to stay there and fight the fight, to wage war on Global Terrorism, and try to wipe the terrorists out as best we can. At the same we are trying to restore some hope for the Iraqi people much as we are doing in Afghanistan. In doing so, I wish we could go at them harder than we are doing, to defeat them quicker, but maybe it is better to do it at a slower pace with some good thought put into how to accomplish our goals. You see, while we are fighting them there, we are defeating them there away from home, that is good. It is time consuming but by taking our time we are assuring protection of the lives of innocent Iraqis, and we are making sure that our own losses are kept to a minimum.
George W. Bush has not been wrong about how he has been doing this. The supporters of JFK and LBJ (almost all democrats) never thought Vietnam was too long until hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens protested. We don't see those protests today, and we likely will not see protests like that today - not even in our instant gratification gotta have it now world of cell phones, the Internet, microwave ovens, and 400 channels on cable television. Why not! Why will we not see protests like that. Well, because even some of the most left leaning wackadoos realize that Bush has it right. He is keeping most of the terrorism, and virtually all of the battles against terrorists, where they belong - on the shores of countries that breed terrorists. Because Bush has been, and is, doing it right our casualties have been kept as low as possible in such a large scale conflict.
So Senator Ted Kennedy - go have another shot of whisky, then go for a long drive off of a short pier (no passengers this time please) what sensible, logical, well thought out, and productive reply do you have to the facts as I just presented them? More blubbering and blathering I suppose, after all, isn't that all we ever hear from you!
For the rest of you out there, our casualties in Iraq are nothing to minimize, they are something to take to heart. Therefore I ask that each of you, who remain at home, do the right thing and show true support for our military personnel. Go to the right column on my page, and in the red shaded area, click on one of the links under Support our Troops - then join one of those groups and do what you can to support our troops.
...and while it contained pictures, I will not include them here just because it is a pain to save them all, then repost them here. If you have half a brain, you do not need to see still shots of General Patton, of 9/11, or of a beheading to get the drift of this message. This was too good to just pass along to those on my email list, and since it was not copyrighted, i figured I would pass it along on my blog:
"Ghost of Patton!! PERHAPS this is how General George S. Patton would sum things up.... and then catch holy hell from Ike. He sure had a FOLKSY way of expressing his thoughts. Ghost of General Patton A Message from the Ghost of General Patton.... " "ATTENTION! To ALL those whining, panty-waisted, pathetic Maggots, it's time for a little refresher course on exactly why we Americans occasionally have to fight wars. See if you can tear yourself away from your 'reality' TV and Starbucks for a minute, pull your head out of your flabby ass -- and LISTEN UP!! Abu Ghraib is not 'torture' or an 'atrocity.' This is the kind of thing frat boys, sorority girls, and academy cadets do to newcomers. A little fun at someone else's expense. Certainly no reason to wring your hands or get your panties in a wad. Got that? THIS IS an atrocity! (picture of a beheading) So Was This!!! (picture of WTC burning on 9/11) WHICH PART DON'T YOU GET? Islam a peaceful religion??? My Ass! Millions of these sons-of-bitches are plotting, as we speak, to destroy our country and our way of life any way they can. Some of them are here among us now. They don't want to convert you and don't want to rule you. You are a vile infestation of Allah's paradise. They don't give a shit how 'progressive' you are, how peace-loving you are, or how much you sympathize with their cause. They want your ass dead , and they think it is God's will for them to do it. Some think if we give them a hug or listen to them, then they'll like us... and if you agree? Then you are a pathetic dumb ass! If they manage to get their hands on a nuke, chemical agents, or even some anthrax -- you will wish to God we had hunted them down and killed THEM while we had the chance. How many more Americans must be beheaded ?? You've fallen asleep AGAIN, maggots! And you may not get another chance! NOW GET OFF YOUR SORRY ASS - and pass this on to any and every person you give a damn about.. if you ever gave a damn about anything DISMISSED! George S. Patton"
I would tend to think that someone like Patton would say something very much like that above, but also think if he were here to say it, it would come out much harsher. He would have a damned good idea of how to whip the sorry asses of the ultra leftist politicians and generals into gear to get the job done.
You know the one I am talking about, don't you! The one that was reported all over the Internet today, and all over the front pages of newspapers throughout our country, and all over television news by liberal anti-American asswipes astute reporters and newscasters. Wait a minute, what do you mean you didn't hear any news about Iraq today, let alone the BIG news story about it. What do you mean? haven't you been watching the news, or listening to the radio, or surfing the net? Don't you keep up on what is going on in the war over in Iraq? Well maybe if it had been reported, you would have heard about it.
Heck the news media sure keeps at it, they know what is going on over there on an almost minute to minute basis. They know the body count, they know how many bombs went off at any given moment, they know which sect is attacking which other sect, and on and on. Yet when it came to Thursday, they in essence said, there was no news to report from Iraq. No terror bombings, no terror killings, no terror attacks of any sort. Guess what they said about that. They said there is no news to report! So if you missed the BIG story, one that might point to the fact that things are changing over there at least a little, maybe it is because the mud slinging media only can report on shit when it is bad for us, and when it makes our president look a fool, or when they want to show their support for ultra whackos like Pelosi or Feinstein. It is sad commentary that I had to hear this news on Rush Limbaugh's radio show (and I would hope he got this right), a show to which I do not regularly tune in. It is a shame that he had to play the clip of a lone newscaster telling said story, saying that there was "no news from Iraq"; when in fact if true that there were no terrorist attacks for even just one day that should have been the biggest story in the media. I just don't get it, how can they be so friggin low.
...has been difficult for the Bush administration in Iraq and Afghanistan, though I think somewhat easier in Afghanistan. Then again, the united States of America has had a negative image throughout the world once we attained a place of strength among nations, once we became a power, let alone once we became a world power. I think some of the main reasons that the image of our great nation has suffered is because: they from the rest of the world, both civilized and not so civilized, throughout history, have been envious of what we have attained while they have not attained such, have misconstrued that we have done so always at the great expense of others and therefore are a threat to them, have rushed to judgement based in great part upon what detractors of the USA and her principals have told them (such as political, religious, and military leaders, and naysayers within our own borders), and because in our Republic we have a form of government, a lifestyle if you will, wherein our citizens, even aliens within our country, can speak out against the government. Other nations do not understand the the rights we enjoy through our various liberties. These things are as foreign to a Chinese rice farmer, as they are to an Afghan goat herder, as they are to many within countries that were once within the Soviet Union, as they are to the citizens of Venezuela or Mexico, and even as they are to those in countries like Germany and England. None of these people share with us the full array of liberties that we here in the USA are free to enjoy.
Yet the USA, and her people, have often been able to overcome most of the negative images that have been portrayed about her by they who would demean us unfairly. A perfect example of about that which I speak started to take place on August 28, 1945 when at an airstrip near Tokyo, American forces began to land. Thus began the actual occupation of japan by armed forces of the USA. Prior to WWII, and all throughout WWII, the Japanese people had an extremely negative image of the people of the United States. They believed us to be barbarians of the worst order, they believed we had little to no morality, they believed us to be physically and mentally inferior to the Japanese people, they believed the USA was intent on dominating Japan and conquering (this before the war broke out). Why, all because of propaganda of the worst sort. Well, it was with the occupation of Japan, that the man on the street in Japan began to realize that such was not the case. of course this was a hard image to overcome, especially in light of the fact that we had bombed both Hiroshima, Nagasaki with nukes, and had fire bombed Tokyo; but it was an image that was eventually overcome. In fact it was overcome so much, that Japan shortly had become, and remains, one of our staunchest allies in the world.
Now if all of those negative things that people imagined about the USA had been true, then how was it that the Japanese became our allies, how was it that our nations got on friendly terms and maintain that friendship so many years later? Was it that the rumors of our horrendous barbaric peoples and customs were true, but we suddenly changed once we occupied Japan. No of course not! The fact is that most if not all of those rumors about how terrible we were were simply proven to be false by the actions we took with those we had defeated in battle. Yes, even though our enemy had been cruel, even though our enemy had provoked the fight, even though they had attacked us in a sneak attack, even though the badly mistreated prisoners of war, even though it was they who often acted barbaric by almost any other nation's standards of decency - we treated them better than fairly after we defeated them despite the fact that we fought them with all we had while they remained combative.
There is a lesson to be learned from all that, and the lesson is applicable today. We need to fight our enemies with all we have in order to win, and I do mean whatever it takes to preserve the Republic. Once we have defeated our enemy we can get down to the act of doling out sympathy for them, but not until that time. They are still kidnapping and beheading people (people who are not combatants), they are still sending suicide bombers against there own kind to provoke sectarian violence, they are fighting as dirty as one can fight; and what are we doing. We are trying to play politics and gain political brownie points by doing things in a politically correct manner. We are winning, but all the while we are dragging our armed forces through the mud because we have weighted them down with political correctness. These are wars which we wage against terrorism, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan and other places; they are not political forums.
We need to get serious, and kick some ass without bothering to stop to see if we have offended anyone. War is offensive - live with it, or lose the war. Then once our enemy has been defeated we can ask him how we can help him to come back into the developed world in a peaceful manner. That is exactly what we did in Japan, exactly what we did in Italy, exactly what we did in Germany, and all of these countries who once were our avowed enemies are now, at least to some extent, our allies. What we did in 1945 is what we we should be doing now.
Well, even if it is only a YouTube video, it is a great to see and hear him (or at least someone who sounds like George C. Scott) go at today's terrorism. If you liked the movie Patton, and if you are ready to see terrorists get what they deserve, and are sick and tired of people who make excuses for terrorism, then grab a favorite beverage (no alcohol for you kids, just for us oldsters) and sit back and enjoy this video:
It sure says an awful lot of sensible things about the current world situation regarding terrorism and rogue nations. The man who made this one up is very good indeed. My thanks to The Autonomist for having this poste don his site. great stuff.
