Sunday, May 18, 2008

WHY WE FIGHT

Believe it or not during WWII we had to employ propaganda to keep the war effort moving positively. Frank Capra was commissioned by the War Department to produce 7 films that accomplished that mission.
The series faced a tough challenge: convincing an isolationist nation of the need to become involved in the war and ally with the Soviets, among other things. In many of the films, Capra and other directors spliced in Axis powers propaganda footage – recontextualizing it so it promoted the cause of the Allies instead... Wikipedia

Twenty years after World War II we find ourselves in Viet Nam in a completely different war. During the 40's Americans obtained their war reports from daily newsprint and weekly newsreels. Fast forward twenty years later and people are watching nightly news broadcasts from Viet Nam and are horrified by what they see.
In a sense, Vietnam was the first televised or "living room" war. Each evening, the networks would show film of the fighting that was, at times, gruesome. Unlike the practice during World War II, the film was neither censored nor subject to any systematic scrutiny by the government. Thus, the public was shown scenes of battles in progress, the dead and wounded, and the coffins of the dead being unloaded.

In the Second World War the scenes were no less horrific than those in Viet Nam but the difference being what the citizenry were exposed to. During the 2004 Democratic Convention Michael Moore asks Bill O'Reilly "would you sacrifice your child for Fallujah?" The question is ridiculous. The opening scenes from Saving Private Ryan gave a realistic portrayal of the carnage brought on to our boys during the landings on D-Day. What would have happened had there been 24 hour cable news during D-Day. Would a 1940's Michael Moore be asking Edward R. Morrow, would you sacrifice your child for Normandy? Now you can say that World War II was a just war and Iraq isn't but I would beg to differ with you.
Lately an anti-war commenter has been trolling on this site and claiming to be a Republican voting for Obama. I'm calling bullshit!
The Virginian said:
1st, what makes you think this same battle would not be occurring over there without us? Right now, what exactly are we doing besides standing between Sunnis and Shiites, Saudia Arabia and Iran? Let them fight it out.

2nd, what exactly does anything in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Seriously, who of the people who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 has ever even stepped foot in Iraq, let alone fought the U.S. there?


I will reproduce an article printed by someone who I share a view with about the war but not much else.
So, Mr. Hitchens, Weren't You Wrong About Iraq?
Hard questions, four years later.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 19, 2007, at 1:53 PM ET

Four years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.

What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train? The question isn't as easy to answer as some people would have you believe. Suppose we run through the actual timeline:

Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?

A majority of the member states thought he was right and had to admit that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. It was scandalous that such a regime could for more than a decade have violated the spirit and the letter of the resolutions that had allowed a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.

Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or obstruction of U.N. inspectors?

If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that enabled even limited inspections to resume.

Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

The entire record of UNSCOM until that date had shown a determination on the part of the Iraqi dictatorship to build dummy facilities to deceive inspectors, to refuse to allow scientists to be interviewed without coercion, to conceal chemical and biological deposits, and to search the black market for materiel that would breach the sanctions. The defection of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law, the Kamel brothers, had shown that this policy was even more systematic than had even been suspected. Moreover, Iraq did not account for—has in fact never accounted for—a number of the items that it admitted under pressure to possessing after the Kamel defection. We still do not know what happened to this weaponry. This is partly why all Western intelligence agencies, including French and German ones quite uninfluenced by Ahmad Chalabi, believed that Iraq had actual or latent programs for the production of WMD. Would it have been preferable to accept Saddam Hussein's word for it and to allow him the chance to re-equip once more once the sanctions had further decayed?

Could Iraq have been believably "inspected" while the Baath Party remained in power?

No. The word inspector is misleading here. The small number of U.N. personnel were not supposed to comb the countryside. They were supposed to monitor the handover of the items on Iraq's list, to check them, and then to supervise their destruction. (If Iraq disposed of the items in any other way—by burying or destroying or neutralizing them, as now seems possible—that would have been an additional grave breach of the resolutions.) To call for serious and unimpeachable inspections was to call, in effect, for a change of regime in Iraq. Thus, we can now say that Iraq is in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty. Moreover, the subsequent hasty compliance of Col. Muammar Qaddafi's Libya and the examination of his WMD stockpile (which proved to be much larger and more sophisticated than had been thought) allowed us to trace the origin of much materiel to Pakistan and thus belatedly to shut down the A.Q. Khan secret black market.

Wasn't Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations a bit of a disgrace?

Yes, it was, as was the supporting role played by George Tenet and the CIA (which has been reliably wrong on Iraq since 1963). Some good legal experts—Ruth Wedgwood most notably—have argued that the previous resolutions were self-enforcing and that there was no need for a second resolution or for Powell's dog-and-pony show. Some say that the whole thing was done in order to save Tony Blair's political skin. A few points of interest did emerge from Powell's presentation: The Iraqi authorities were caught on air trying to mislead U.N inspectors (nothing new there), and the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a very dangerous al-Qaida refugee from newly liberated Afghanistan, was established. The full significance of this was only to become evident later on.

Was the terror connection not exaggerated?

Not by much. The Bush administration never claimed that Iraq had any hand in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But it did point out, at different times, that Saddam had acted as a host and patron to every other terrorist gang in the region, most recently including the most militant Islamist ones. And this has never been contested by anybody. The action was undertaken not to punish the last attack—that had been done in Afghanistan—but to forestall the next one.

Was a civil war not predictable?

Only to the extent that there was pre-existing unease and mistrust between the different population groups in Iraq. Since it was the policy of Saddam Hussein to govern by divide-and-rule and precisely to exacerbate these differences, it is unlikely that civil peace would have been the result of prolonging his regime. Indeed, so ghastly was his system in this respect that one-fifth of Iraq's inhabitants—the Kurds—had already left Iraq and were living under Western protection.

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.Related in Slate


It is not my intention to persuade Virginian to support the war but this article may help others who aren't so sure one way or another to move in this direction.

36 comments:

Sanskar said...

Hey, This was really a very nice post! thanks for sharing!

Anonymous said...

Well said. Even talking to these Islamic militants in Iran is showing a sign of weakness. They don't think like we do.

I hope Barack Obama finally gets it.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone hear Barack Obama on the air the other day saying that he has campaigned in 57 states?

Did he flunk civics class?

There is an Organization of Islamic Conference whose goal is to spreak Islam around the world. They have 57 member states.

Barack must want ours to be the 58th.

the Virginian said...

Thank you Sarge.

I stated in my posts that I supported and still support the original invasion. The stuff about the WMD was enough to invade and even to follow up the invasion for a year or more.

Unfortunately, I think you are missing the question that is tearing the Republican party apart these days. The question, again, is what are we doing there today?
Is there something like a Hitchens article to explain what the goal has been for the last 4 years since?

Because it hasn't been WMDs or Saddam for a long, long time.

3900 Americans have died and tens of thousands injured since the original objectives were met.

And the Shiites and Sunnis ARE at each other's throats.

Which leaves the question of why we are doing anything to stop them, let alone putting OUR kids in the middle.


OK, let me put this another way. What do you need to see happen before you are willing to pull our kids out of Iraq?

For what its worth, I'm sorry to trouble your site with this. Just figured I'd throw my .02 out there and help explain a bit of what is happening outside of your particular zoo.

If you think about it, how in the world did Hastert's seat get lost? Do any of you think there is one other issue besides Iraq that is turning even the most conservative among us into temporary Dems?

My guess is that McCain is going to be defining some very specific end game for Iraq before November, and I'm going to be very surprised if he doesn't do it by the end of June. Putting a point on it is about the only hope for a Republican in November, and its already too late for the rout in Congress.

the virginian said...

--a Republican voting for Obama. I'm calling bullshit!--

I should add, this is the truth. I'd put 95% odds on it that I've given more to Republican senate campaigns (and never, not once, to a Democrat) than any of the kindergarden namecallers here.

As I indicated, this comes down to the one issue which you avoid with the non-sequiter to Hitchen's explanation of why we went to war. As noted in my previous comment, I actually agree with Hitchen's explanation.

But the question is, what exactly is the endgame here? Let's analogize to Germany in WWII.

Are we done when we occupy the country and all the enemy leaders (Hitler, Goebbels, Goering etc.) of the country are dead? Check.

Are we done when the enemy government is dissolved and replaced? Check.

Are we done when our stated goals (removing Saddam, finding WMDs or ensuring there are none) are met? Check.

Again, the question is, what exactly are we doing there today? Winning? Our boys already won. Years ago. Mission accomplished and all that.

If you think I'm alone in this, you are nuts. The percentage of the electorate calling themselves Republicans this year is at the lowest point in decades. The chairman of the Republican house caucus was on Bloomberg this week indicating that Republican candidates are doing and have to do everything possible to disassociate themselves with a "toxic" Bush. As I noted previously, you guys just lost Hastert's seat for crissakes!

And, for what its worth, my first choice was Ron Paul, and Huckabee after him.

Unfortunately, unless McCain comes out and sets out specific achievable objectives for Iraq (where all previous ones have already been met), it is hopeless for him.

How can he expect the nation's support for something he can't explain? And if he could explain what the goals were today, I'm sure they would have appeared somewhere in the 30 or so comments on this topic.

Sorry for bringing this a bit off the usual police topics, but Obama seems like someone you guys have resigned yourselves to. You want this country back?

Quit sending kids to fight a war that nobody can explain any more. You do that, and you'll have the 20% who have time to think about these things back in the ranks.

Anonymous said...

General Colin Powell wisely warned us,not to invade until an exit strategy was devised. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney refused to heel. Former President George HW Bush warned President W not to invade. Colin Powell specified that we would need 450,000 troops(boots on the ground) to effectvely occupy not the 150,000 that we have.

This was the first time in history that all of the commanding officers,of all branches,issued a direct appeal to the White House to have Donald Rumsfeld resign,which occurred shortly thereafter.

All in all,a big lie and the internal destruction of the world's greatest military. I was a NO-GO on the Iraq War from inception. The entire upper echelon of the chain has turned against the war and realize the damage down to the US military. Afghanistan was an immediate necessity,Iraq was not. Iraq was and still is just a pretext to the ultimate goal of attacking Iran a land locked and water locked country.

Let Israel fight their own wars,they could never handle Iran alone. The IDF got their asses handed to them in Lebanon two years ago by Hezbollah,truth be told.

Do not be deceived,talk to some intelligent veterans or current members of the military about what is occurring.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore,John McCain is NOT the answer to our problems. We are in a major quandary for leadership. Say your prayers that this nation will hold up to what is inevitably coming and it is not good...

Anonymous said...

Seek the truth,Ron Paul in '08!!!

Sick of Liberals said...

I wrote earlier about my two sons currently serving in the Army. The virginian was quick to ridicule me and my family's service. Not unusual from a typical liberal coward and a very confused voter. (First he stands firmly behind Ron Paul and now he's sucking up to Obama. Gee, who will he vote for in November?)

He wants a short version of why we are fighting in Iraq. SCS, you are correct that you will never convince this guy of anything. Hell, he can't even convince himself of who to support for president. Typical liberal who stands for nothing - so - they fall for anything.

In the 6 weeks before my oldest son left in April for another tour in Iraq, he was stationed at Fort Polk training with the the Joint Readiness Training Command. (JRTC)

I spent some time there with him and got to meet several of the Iraqis who are here training with JRTC. These men and women are extremely grateful for our help. They want freedom for their people and they want peace. They understand what it means when our forces put themselves in harm's way because over the years every one them has lost numerous friends and relatives to Saddam, or during the last war with Iran, and in the most recent civil war.

A stable Iraq will go a long way toward ensuring the long term safety and security of the Middle East and ultimately the U.S. Liberal pansies afraid of this fight say "Who cares about Israel?" and "Who cares about Iraq?" That's because they are self-serving pukes who live only to make more money and feather their own nests. They are too stupid to see the big picture.

On my last day at Fort Polk, my son and I were standing outside his quarters on Louisiana Avenue. Three Iraqi soldiers stood by as I hugged my son to say goodbye. One by one they came over, shook my hand, hugged me and tearfully thanked me for giving the world such a man. It was among the proudest moments of my life, and I'm not ashamed to say I wept on the drive back to Houston.

People like the virginian don't care about my sons or the men and women fighting with them. They talk about "our kids" like they know who they are. They don't. They are the same self-involved parasites who threw urine on us when we returned from Vietnam.

Flame away, virginian. I won't respond. You and your kind aren't worth it. I am the proud parent of two American soldiers and another son on CPD. Every day, each one of them risks himself for strangers, many of whom are slugs like you who arrogantly denounce their sacrifice. We aren't like you, and thank God for that.

Anonymous said...

Iraq was and still is just a pretext to the ultimate goal of attacking Iran a land locked and water locked country.
...talk to some intelligent veterans...

Mon May 19, 04:56:00 PM

Obviously you aren't one of these veterans. Iran isn't land locked and there is no such thing as "water locked."

As for your comment that this has destroyed our military, you might as well work for that liberal anti-American news organization called NBC. On the contrary, the U.S. military is in the throes of a desperately needed shakeup forcing it to adapt to the enemy of the future, the urban terrorist.

Old timers like Rumsfeld (whose sum total of direct military service took place in the states training pilots during the Korean War) and lots of other CYA clowns ranked O-6 and above who are now being forced out wreaked havoc on the Army from within. Instead of providing cutting edge leadership most hid in the Pentagon and ignored the younger leaders actually fighting the war.

This was the result of the Clinton era when the military was stripped bare and only the shrewdest, (not the best and brightest), survived.

You really think Obama will make our military stronger? The man who has saluted the African flag for 20 years and is married to a blatant racist? Think about it - if you really are concerned about our military - which I suspect you are not - then the only choice is a man who knows firsthand the sufferings of war and who has devoted his life to this country.

the Virginian said...

--A stable Iraq will go a long way toward ensuring the long term safety and security of the Middle East and ultimately the U.S. --

Congratulations tough guy, you finally did it! Did it take you five days to write this sentence?

I hope not, because its five days wasted.

In the Middle East, we have a nuclear Pakistan and 4 years of NATO calling for more troops for Afghanistan which the US can't provide.

Fighting 6 different sides of an Iraqi civil war helps this how?

In the Middle East, we have Syria trying to build reactors with North Korean aid, and Iraq well on its way to a nuke. It appears that George doesn't really have a plan for these guys.

Turning the world's finest army into a nationalized version of the CPD helps us how?

In the Middle East, we have Yemen letting the Cole bombers walk around freely with government protection for months, and Hezbollah pretty much taking over Lebanon.

In the Middle East, we've got a de-facto Hamas administration in an evacuated Gaza. Stable?

And finally, in the Middle East, we've STILL got wealthy Saudi, Kuwaiti and Qutari businessmen funding Al Queda. And these are our allies?

Good job Sick of Liberals, your feeble brain really has this one figured out! You might as well have pointed up to the sky and yelled "LOOK, OVER THERE" for the value of this particular quote.

You should be ashamed to call yourself a conservative. Conservatives ask questions of government. It looks like you've been reading comic books instead.

the Virginian said...

--The virginian was quick to ridicule me and my family's service.--

Oh, and by the way, you are completely 100% full of shit. What I said is that I very much doubt you have two sons, let alone two who are junior officers in the army.

My immediate and extended family has sent half a dozen to Iraq and Afghanistan in the last few years, and I've never heard a single person so casually excuse the danger these kids are in. Any kids you had would have buckled from the weight of carrying you and your bags around long before 21.

5 days for you to come up with a puffy and meaningless justification for continuation of this war?

You may be old. You may have been on the job. You may think you are a conservative. The rest is all in your head. May God forgive your disregard for the lives of our soldiers and the safety of our nation.

Anonymous said...

virgin-ya said
...and by the way, you are completely 100% full of shit. What I said is that I very much doubt you have two sons, let alone two who are junior officers in the army.

That's not what you said at all, virgin, and i got to laugh at how this guy gets you all riled up. it's easy to see that you are some rich arrogant college kid surfing blogs for obama. he's got a whole legion of stupes like you who spend their days surfing conservative blogs and pretending to be republicans for obama. hey it aint working here. btw - i got two cousins ages 22 and 26 who are junior officers in the army both graduated rotc ones a second loot and ones a captain you only doubt this guy cause you dont have kids give it up loser and go to summer school.

Anonymous said...

Barack Obama Bin-Laden says---

Do not disrespect my followers. They will do anything for me. They cheer for me. They will conceal their identity on the internet and post falsehoods for me, all in the name of the jihad.

The final thing they will have to do is embrace Allah after the election. I just hope that they don't lose the stars in their eyes after the burquas and turbans are handed out.

the Virginian said...

2:31, can you just for one second add a word of substance?

Karl Rove would blush if he thought you were an accurate representation of the Republican party.

Sarge, on further reflection, I've decided to provide you a brief summary of America's recent liberal history of military compromises:

Korea (1953): the noted liberal Dwight D. Eisenhower negotiates a truce that allows the North Koreans and (mainly) Chinese to retain North Korea.

Vietnam (1969): the noted liberal Richard Nixon introduces the word "vietnamization" into the lexicon. Starting in June 1969, Nixon orders the withdrawal of U.S. troops, culminating in a full military withdrawal by 1973.

Lebanon (1983): the noted liberal Ronald Reagan pulls U.S. troops out of a peacekeeping policing function after the peacekeepees start attacking the peacekeepers.

Iraq (1991): the noted liberal George Bush Sr. negotiates a cease fire that allows Saddam Hussein to retain Iraq for 12 years.

Thats right boys. Every Republican president since the 1920s not-named Bush Jr. has a history of making rational decisions in the best interests of our nation, and including military compromises or withdrawals from unfavorable positions.

We can argue about whether they were right or wrong in hindsight, but ANY of them could justify the pros and cons of a position in real time.

The best you guys get is mealy-mouthed "trust mes", and whaddya know, yous guys do!

On your best day I doubt some of you would recognize a conservative.

SECOND CITY SARGE said...

Virginian said....
On your best day I doubt some of you would recognize a conservative.

The problem here Virginian is that you believe you are the only true conservative. When you mentioned that you supported Ron Paul it all made sense to me.
About.com has an article called "Before You Call Yourself A Conservative ...
What's a Conservative?"
By Justin Quinn
The article describes the various philosophies of the leading conservative movements. You sir would probably be classified as a paleocon.......Paleocons believe in Laissez-faire capitalism, limited government and a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Most paleoconservatives are strongly opposed to the current war in Iraq, especially given the US’s tenuous basis for invasion.

In a previous age, paleocons would have believed military force should be used only in defense of a foreign attack or overt aggression against the US. but it is no longer applicable today, considering the recent history of large dictator-states headed by leaders bent on mass destruction. Paleocons believe pre-emptive strikes are justified against such aggressors or other extremists and fundamentalist terrorists who answer to no state, government or international law.
Sound about right?
As for Neocons.......Cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy
To neocons it is the economy, not the tax cuts that should be emphaszed. Neocons believe a balanced budget isn't as important as creating an environment within which people can thrive. Kristol believed shouldering the burden of budget shortfalls sometimes is the price of a good economy.
Enforcing morality to create a more civil society
Like social conservatives, neoconservatives believe US culture continues to sink to new lows of vulgarity. Like most social conservatives, neocons believe government has a responsibility to restore faith and values to society. Unlike social conservatives, however, neocons don't subscribe to the notion of America as a Christian nation, but instead embrace all faiths that have strong moral emphases.
Aggressive nation-building and the exportation of democracy as a fundamental foreign policy
Neoconservatives believe the way to combat terrorism and extremism is to implement democracies in emerging nations and assist countries in adopting democratic governements.

According to your own words these folks aren't real conservatives.

Anonymous said...

the virginonion said...

I'd put 95% odds on it that I've given more to Republican senate campaigns (and never, not once, to a Democrat) than any of the kindergarden namecallers here.

On your best day I doubt some of you would recognize a conservative.

Thu May 22, 08:30:00 AM

Who are you calling a kindergarden namecaller you fart-faced peedrinker! Hey, wanna see a picture of your sister...naked?

As for your 95% odds...That's so stupid and arrogant I'm gonna give your momma an extra slap tonight!

And today was my best day and I recognized two...no...three conservatives! And tomorrow will be my best day and I'm gonna recognize some more so now watcha gotta say! Yer killin' me, kid!

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul supporter says that I believe that there are some good views espoused here by both sides,the true essence of gentlemanly debate.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the Iraqi War from its inception and did and still do honorably serve my country,paygrade E7,branch USAR,time in the sandbox.

To all who proclaim their patriotism based upon their children's service shame on you. God Bless your children and may he keep them safe. Manup and suit up yourself and then I will salutate you too.

History will tell the story,time tells all.

I am Christian,conservative,Pro-Life,Pro-2nd Amendment,Pro-Bill of Rights and US Constitution,Anti-Taxation,Anti-Globalist,Anti-UN,Anti-Immigration Amnesty.

the Virginian said...

You I like. And, for what its worth, I thank you for the service you provide to the Chicago Police Department and its members.


What I am saying about conservatives is that the nature of conservatism is to question and distrust government, and generally oppose expanded government. I'd imagine that you and most in the CPD would describe themselves this way. My accusation is that in this one area, we as conservatives have let our guard down, and partly because the original source of these questions was the absurdist left (including Obama).

When Gingrich spoke out, it went right over my head. Gerald Ford? Bush I? They all raised their concerns, and mostly in private. It honestly took several repeat visits to Arlingon to prompt me to ask the questions, and to realize how little in the way of answers have been given since.

Any of the conservatives you describe would agree with the notion of questioning government, and demanding answers. Particularly given this particular cost.

As much as I worry about police officers for what they are asked to do in my (society's) name, I worry the same about our soldiers.

I'm still outraged when I watch Black Hawk Down and wonder what kind of idiot would send our kids there, but then deny them equipment for fear of it looking "like a war".

For the specific attributes, this warrants consideration "Paleocons believe pre-emptive strikes are justified against such aggressors or other extremists and fundamentalist terrorists who answer to no state, government or international law."

I believe that ANY state who knowingly harbors a terrorist who engages in warfare against us should be treated as being at war with us. That includes virtually every state in the list I provided.

Iran? Next shipment of arms intercepted on the way into Iraq or Afghanistan renders all Iranian borders meaningless to the U.S.

Syria? I want whoever bombed that barracks in Lebanon in 1983, and I'd stand on my roof cheering if we sent our army in to get em in Syria and Lebanon.

Problem is, that's not what we have our soldiers in Iraq doing. Bush yesterday laid a very vague outline of what he wants in Iraq. Something about a strong government, an ally on the war on terror, and the destruction of AQ in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the government Shiites and the others (Sadrists) both have strong ties to Iran. Today its reported that Sistani is issuing private Fatwas on our troops, even as the Iraqi president relies on him for support.

The secular Sunnis only came into our camp when they realized that the Shiites had started a pretty large death squad campaign after the golden dome bombing. Before that, even the secular Sunnis were doing mass suicide bomgings.

I look at that, and history, and can't help but conclude our army is being misused. If we aren't going to let them loose on our enemies, than I don't want them exposed out there in my name.

And for this, this one issue, a lot of people in my camp are looking at Obama and holding our noses.

My guess is though that McCain sees where this is going, and he is going to make a major effort to address our concerns. If he is willing to promise far enough either way (let our army loose or bring em home), than you will see a whole lot of people back in the camp.

He might not realize it yet, but this is the top issue for him to deal with in the campaign.

Short answer, paleo sounds about right. Neo cons are mostly ex-liberals of a 70s vintage, and the dreamy stuff is a million miles from where I'm at.

Anonymous said...

"Who cares about Israel?" and "Who cares about Iraq?"


They are comments by liberals?

LOLOLOL!

Anonymous said...

To all who proclaim their patriotism based upon their children's service shame on you. God Bless your children and may he keep them safe. Manup and suit up yourself and then I will salutate you too.
Thu May 22, 06:47:00 PM

Really? I shouldn't proclaim any patriotism because my daughter is an O-4 and has served 2 tours in Afghanistan? I served 26 months in Vietnam, gumby. I'm proud of her service and mine dickhead so take your time in the sandbox and GFY and don't "salutate" me whatever that means.

Anonymous said...

the Virginian said...
You I like. And, for what its worth, I thank you for the service you provide to the Chicago Police Department and its members.

My accusation is that in this one area, we as conservatives have let our guard down, and partly because the original source of these questions was the absurdist left (including Obama).

It honestly took several repeat visits to Arlingon to prompt me to ask the questions, and to realize how little in the way of answers have been given since.

Any of the conservatives you describe would agree with the notion of questioning government, and demanding answers. Particularly given this particular cost.

As much as I worry about police officers for what they are asked to do in my (society's) name, I worry the same about our soldiers.

I'm still outraged when I watch Black Hawk Down and wonder what kind of idiot would send our kids there, but then deny them equipment for fear of it looking "like a war".
Thu May 22, 08:47:00 PM

To the virginian...your mistake was coming on to this blog and pretending to be one of us. When you say, "I'd imagine that you and most in the CPD would describe themselves this way." you are admitting that you are not the police and you never were.

While I applaud your desire to understand the conundrums that interweave the U.S. poltical scene, you should have revealed yourself immediately. It does not matter that you are not the police. SCS does not discriminate on the posts allowed on this blog - that's what makes it great. However, some up front honesty would have gained more respect from the PO's who come here.

That being said, I hope the next time you are at Arlington you will not be so sad about the men and women who have died, but appreciate that they gave themselves for your freedom. Because that is what honors them. They don't want you to grieve - they want you to live! Live the life they would have lived!

These young warriors have gone to a greater reward than we could ever imagine. Here we are arguing about whether some old man or some woman or some younger wannabe can lead us. In fact, WE are the leaders! Stop fronting for someone else and take some responsibility! Make those dead warriors proud of you! Right now they are laughing at us!

Come to Chicago some day and visit the Gold Star Memorial. When I stand there, I laugh a bit at how we, the living, take ourselves so seriouly. I look at the star of an old friend, Terry Loftus, and laugh with him. I remember how full of life he was up to the day he was shot in the back and died all because he thought he could make a city and a neighborhood safer for citizens he didn't even personally know.

The irony is that the district he worked in was named after an English playwright whose works have been immortalized. But Terry has been long forgotten. He wrote his masterpiece in a few seconds by getting out of his car and standing up, outnumbered, to evil. And he has never been heard from since.

Put away the movies. Blackhawk Down is not even historically accurate. And, the Democrats savior, Clinton, betrayed the American soldiers who had been sent to Somalia.

If you really think Obama will do better for our soldiers than McCain, come to Chicago and stand at the altar of Trinity United Church, where Obama has worshipped for 20 years. Visit the home of Jeremiah Wright - (sorry, you can't get in because he lives in a gated community in all white suburb) a man who has deceived and betrayed all the people, black, white and hispanic, who struggled to believe in his messages of "hope."

You won't "like" me for what I am writing to you. But I perceive you are struggling to come to grips with this world, and I commend you for it. Stop trying to make sense of all this. Take a very, very deep breath. Take another one. Then another. Lighten up. Swallow your ego. Turn the page. Think of a good friend and that last laugh you guys had. Clear your mind. Move on. Now you are a cop.

Anonymous said...

Saw Obama greeting veterans in Puerto Rico and ewearing a flag pin. What a sad excuse for a human being. What a lying flip-flopper.

Also telling people to leave his wife alone cause he won't stand for any attacks on her by the media. Hey, osama, tell her to keep her big fat racist mouth shut. Until then, she's fair game.

the Virginian said...

--To the virginian...your mistake was coming on to this blog and pretending to be one of us.--

If this is my mistake, than I guess I'm golden.

First, by quick calculations I was a Chicagoan for 73% of my life. I worked for the CPD for 16% of my life.

Second, this is the internet, and we are all anonymous. Who are you and who is this "us" of whom you speak. For the sake of those in the CPD, I sure as hell hope that anyone who reads this or SCC does not ASSume anyone is or is not a current or former member of the CPD.

But I digress.

--You should have revealed yourself immediately--

I undigress. Is there something about "the Virginian" that would lead you to believe I'm in Chicago? Just kidding, just kidding. I'll stick with my remarks above.

-- I hope the next time you are at Arlington you will not be so sad about the men and women who have died--

We are all going to die, every one of us. What makes me sad is that I, personally, am part of a process that affirmatively sent these men and women to their deaths. And now, as evidenced by dozens of posts on this board, nobody can explain what EXACTLY is left for these kids to achieve militarily.

--Right now they are laughing at us!--

I sure hope so! What of the 900 severely brain damaged? The thousands of amputees? You couldn't buy me a smile if that was me.

--Come to Chicago some day--
You may be happy to know that I maintain a second home downtown and, yet, pose almost no burden to you or the city. Yay me! huh? I'm home enough, and I've been there.

--Terry Loftus--
I'm guessing you are a bit older than me. Were you there before they created 025 from, at least in part, 014?

--Blackhawk Down is not even historically accurate. And, the Democrats savior, Clinton, betrayed the American soldiers who had been sent to Somalia. --

That was sorta my point. There are parallels to be drawn nevertheless with what has happened the last few years. Unfortunately, a lot of conservatives have not thought about this, perhaps knowing whose arms they are playing into by questioning the leadership of a Republican president.

--Trinity United Church--
I'm under the impression that the only people not absolutely stunned by Wright were Chicagoans. At least, I was the only one I know out here who apparently already knew that people like that exist in Chicago.

--all white suburb--
Increasingly less so. The south and southwest suburbs are toast, but thats another story.

--struggling to come to grips with this world--

As often as someone made a phone call to complain, my old bosses, white and black, would tell them that they didn't take complaints about me on paper.

I would not be a conservative if I could not justify what I do and say. Indeed, that may be 80% of the definition of any conservative.

I hope you are retired and enjoying life. If there was one thing that motivated me to get out, and early, it was the realization of how relatively few I knew were equipped for a life after the CPD.

Its a big country, and lots of things for all of you to see when you have some time.

Anonymous said...

"sorry, you can't get in because he lives in a gated community in all white suburb"

Tinley Park is not all white-you goof-and even if you were right- the fact that he moved there makes no longer an "all white" suburb.

Anonymous said...

Tinley Park is not all white-you goof-and even if you were right- the fact that he moved there makes no longer an "all white" suburb.

Sun May 25, 10:06:00 PM

Sorry, I should have made this clearer for the morons like you who don't get it. Tinley Park is either all-white or all-white-wannabes. The point, for those of you too infantile to understand, is that he didn't retire to Hyde Park or Englewood or Crestwood or Ford Heights - or other places like these where he and the other false black "holy men/reverends" garner all of their support.

Anonymous said...

Fri May 23, 12:55:00 PM

Too bad,so sad. I would have entertained a logical debate wtih you but you had to resort to the tactic of unprofessionalism by using vulgarity.

The war in Iraq is a loser as President Bush's former press secretary is admitting,it is based on nothing more than lies and slick propganda to make money for MNC's at the expense of our military and our country. 12 Billion dollars a month for what? What is the exit strategy? Who will replace the midlevel to senior talent pool of NCO's and O's that are bailing like there is no tomorrow?

W should have listened to the senior level military officials,the Secretary of State and his Father and not invaded Iraq. The devil you know and control is better than the devil you do not know. We have created a fertile recruiting ground for Anti-American forces and a huge vacuum for Iranian influence which did not exist prior to the war.

Sadam was a piece of work but we controlled his every movement and he controlled the Kurds and the Shiites. He was a balance to the Iranian influence and he was secular. No established ties to AL Queda.

SECOND CITY SARGE said...

anonymous said.....
The war in Iraq is a loser as President Bush's former press secretary is admitting.
Wed May 28, 06:01:00 PM

Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.
Scott McClellan taking issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," on March 22, 2004.
Hardly the guy to confirm your biases against Bush.

Anonymous said...

Too bad,so sad. I would have entertained a logical debate wtih you but you had to resort to the tactic of unprofessionalism by using vulgarity.

Wed May 28, 06:01:00 PM

Too bad for you, tubesteak. (Is that too vulgar for sensitive little you?)

The problem with you obama bootlickers is this: You think there's a debate. THERE IS NO DEBATE! The war is on; the enemy has been joined; the exit strategy has been laid out by Petraeus and Crocker, and it is working.

Get this through your pinhead - there is no such thing as a "good" war. Public opinion will always be against a prolonged war effort. But with more and more liberals in this country, (a by-product of lazy thought and materialism), people are becoming softer and less willing to stand for freedom.

This is what the Iranians teach their soldiers: "The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away," leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies." It's called "The Last Helicopter."

You and dirtbags like you support our enemies and endanger our service men and women. Your scumbuddy obama is their hero. You should all be shot.

As for Scott McLellan, he is just another limpdick who will do or say anything to sell books and make money. Him and people like him come out years after the fact and "expose" the secrets. If he knew then what he says he did, how can you trust him now?

And if you don't like vulgarity then don't come into MY sandbox.

the Virginian said...

--the exit strategy has been laid out by Petraeus and Crocker, and it is working--

I'm not the guy you are yelling at, but boy oh boy is this a funny statement. I gave you guys 10 days to give the current strategy, the current fight we hope to win. You know what you guys have put up on this board in 10 days?

Zilch, nada, zip, zero, squat. So give it to us baby. My ears are open wider than Obama's are big. What is the current strategy in Iraq?

Because Bush last week said ZILCH, NADA, ZIP, ZERO, SQUAT about Iran.

He mentioned a local "Al Queda" which seems to be Saudi-financed Sunni Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians and Syrians. And there Bush was two weeks ago begging the King of Saudi Arabia to increase oil output!

As for Iran, you realize what Democracy in Iraq has gotten us? A Shiite coalition of Sadrists and Council For the Islamic Revolution in Iraqis, both heavily financed by Iran, and both with militias trained by Iran.

2 of 3 current U.S. operations in Iraq are directed to such Shiites.

Again, we prop up a government on the one hand, and the government is funded and fields militias that are backed by the Iranians on the other.

But you sound like you've been given the inside scoop that Bush can't give the country. What is it? What is the endgame in Iraq?

Because whatever you are thinking, it ain't what Bush is saying or has been saying for the last few years.

And your faith? Faith is a jump across a puddle from where logic and reason end.

Sounds like you have the same faith in Bush that the meatheads over there have in Allah! Allahu Bushbar?

Anonymous said...

the virginian said-

"First, by quick calculations I was a Chicagoan for 73% of my life. I worked for the CPD for 16% of my life."

this has to be about the dumbest thing I've ever read. it could only be true if you were dead. you are one screwed up fed.

the Virginian said...

--it could only be true if you were dead.--

Math is hard, huh?

If 80 years old, than I would have been a Chicagoan for 58.4 years, and a member of the CPD for 12.8 years.

If 70 years old, than I would have been a Chicagoan for 51.1 years, and a member of the CPD for 11.2 years.

If 60, than 43.8 years and 9.6 years.

If 50, than 36.5 years and 8.0 years.

If 40, than 29.2 years and 6.4 years.

If 30, than 21.9 years and 4.8 years.

Any of these is possible, and somewhere inbetween is true.

You should stick to what you know, whatever that might be.

Anonymous said...

You should stick to what you know, whatever that might be.

Fri May 30, 04:26:00 PM

Here's a couple of things I know - - you are a fed - you got a thing for numbers - you think Aunt Bea is good at what she does - you cannot figure out how old you are - you are an idiot. Sorry, but that's the way things are. I just love getting you all riled up!

Anonymous said...

--Here's a couple of things I know--

This should be fun, as you are 0 for anything so far here.

--you are a fed--

Nope. Feds aren't in the top tax bracket.

0 for anything plus 1.

--you got a thing for numbers--

It appears I have a thing for a whole bunch of things you don't have, all related to thinking.

1 for anything plus 2 (congratulations!!)

--you think Aunt Bea is good at
what she does --

Nope. I actually defended Aunt Bea as a good sergeant, and have no opinion as to her current performance or even her performance as a DC.

1 for anything plus 3.

--you cannot figure out how old you are --

1 for anything plus 4.

--you are an idiot--

This is rich.

1 for anything plus 5.


You know how you can tell you are the dumbest person on this board? You are the only one still arguing with me.

--Sorry, but that's the way things are. I just love getting you all riled up!--

Better than hearing what passes for your thoughts I guess.

Sock-Puppets-Rejoice said...

I think Chris Hitchens is a CIA asset, tool, or fool. The guy has swung from so far left to so far right I think his credibility is entirely gone!

He sounds way too much like Stewie from Family Guy, and drinks a LOT, lot more...

IMHO, File him under "untrustworthy whore" at the very least.

Seek many MORE sources of opinion/news.

Coldtype has a nice blogroll of links in his right gutter...

ColdtypE

Info-C.H.

CursoR

Nice blog, Sarge!

"GOOD DAY, Sirrr!" ;=>

heinz 57 states sauce said...



57 States

*Claim:* During a campaign stop, Barack Obama said that he had visited "fifty-seven states."

*Status:* */Multiple ? see below./*

*Examples:* /[Collected via e-mail, June 2008]/

I guesss Obama was speaking the truth about the 57 states. You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this? And everybody chalked it up to, 'Well, he's tired.' Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a printout from a website called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. 'Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations commission on human rights called combating.' And the title of the piece here is, 'How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council,' and there are 57 of them. Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?

------------------------------------------------------------------------ /[Collected via e-mail, May 2008]/

When Obama said he campaigned in all 57 states, the immediate response to his error is that there are 57 Islamic states. Is that a correct number of Islamic countries?

------------------------------------------------------------------------ /[Collected via e-mail, May 2008]/

Someone sent me this quote. Can you please verify? Thanks! "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

*Origins:* On the campaign trail in Beaverton, Oregon, in May 2008, an obviously tired Barack Obama mistakenly told a crowd that over the course of the long campaign he had been to fifty-seven states in the U.S., with one left to go: "... it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States.

I've now been in fifty ....
seven states?

I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it."

Talking with reporters at a later campaign stop, Senator Obama expressed concern that he'd recently misstated both the number of potential victims of a recent cyclone in Burma and the number of states he'd visited, saying:

"I hope I said 100 thousand people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh ..."

Quickly enough, based on the (spurious) rumor that Senator Obama is a Muslim, someone came up with the fanciful idea that his mention of "fifty-seven states" was a reference to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC ), which has 57 member states. (Actually, the OIC encompasses 60 countries altogether: 57 member states and 3 observer states.) The actual intent behind Senator Obama's misstatement is easy to discern without the need to invoke an obscure international organization. He was trying to express the thought that in all the time he had spent on the campaign trail so far in 2007-08, he had visited all (48) of the states in the continental U.S. save for one (i.e., "one left to go," excluding Alaska and Hawaii), but in his weariness he slipped up and started off with "fifty" instead of "forty."

(Note the long pause in the video clip between the words "fifty" and "seven.")

As for the next obvious question, depending upon the definitional criteria used, there are more or less than 57 Islamic countries/nations/states in the world. If an Islamic state is defined to mean any country in which a majority of the indigenous population is Muslim, then the total number of Islamic states is actually a little lower (about 52).

All such numbers are estimates, however, and are subject to additional definitional criteria.

As for Barack Obama's "fifty-seven states" verbal slip-up, it wasn't long before some wags also spoofed a previous controversy over the senator's eschewing the wearing of a U.S. flag lapel pin by coming up with a revised version of that familiar adornment:

*Last updated:* 19 June 2008 The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2008 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources /Sources:/ Malcolm, Andrews. "Barack Obama Wants to Be President of These 57 United States." /Los Angeles Times ['Top of the Ticket' Blog] ./ 9 May 2008.

Please keep in mind that this is an open blog
that can and is read by people other than Chicago Police Officers.