Confederate Yankee
June 13, 2007
The First Immigration Debate
Beware the Crackers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:28 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They paid the price for open borders, lets not do the same.
Posted by: GeorgeH at June 13, 2007 05:52 PM (Jkcjv)
2
Tended to fall down a bit at the end, but pretty funny. Thanks for putting it up.
Posted by: dusty at June 13, 2007 11:03 PM (GJLeQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
It's Time To Consider Bombing Republican National Headquarters
On second thought, nevermind. They seem quite intent on imploding it themselves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:12 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm with ya'. Let's saddle up.
Posted by: Dan at June 13, 2007 03:14 PM (JfUNh)
2
Lets just get Bush to change his party affliation to Democrat.
Then the real fun can begin.
The poor MSM wont know what to do with itself.
Posted by: bcismar at June 13, 2007 04:34 PM (OHt2g)
3
First, it was the RINO's...now, it's Bush and this bullcrap amnesty deal. I said three years ago that this amnesty crap would ruin the party...and it has.
Posted by: LisaV (aka "Talismen - Lady Crusader against jihad") at June 13, 2007 07:26 PM (jaqG+)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 13, 2007 08:42 PM (m/mcc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 12, 2007
Burning the Smoking Gun
On February 12, Thomas Harding, Defense Correspondent of the U.K. Daily Telegraph, published what many regarded as evidence of the literal "smoking gun" proving Iranian government involvement in Iraq:
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.
The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.
The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.
Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.
Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported.
The find is the latest in a series of discoveries that indicate that Teheran is providing support to Iraq's Shia insurgents.
Other Iranian ordnance, such as explosively-formed penetrators designed to slice through armored vehicles and Iranian-manufactured mortar and artillery shells had previously been captured in Iraq, though with little solid evidence implicating the Iranian government.
Capturing more than 100 of the 800 Austrian rifles shipped to the Iranian government—over twelve percent of their entire purchase—would be the most direct evidence yet of the Iranian government supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons to kill coalition forces.
But the U.S. military says not so much as a single Steyr-Mannlicher HS50 .50-caliber sniper rifle has ever been documented as having been captured from Sunni insurgents or Shia militias in Iraq.
In an exclusive to
Confederate Yankee, U.S. Army Christopher C. Garver, Director of the Combined Press Information Center for Multinational Corps-Iraq, stated that no such rifles have ever been confirmed recovered by American military forces in Iraq.
"Ever since that article, we have queried our units to see if anyone can find any evidence of those Steyr-Mannlicher sniper rifles," said Garver.
"To date, we have not found one unit that has any knowledge of that find.
"I can't tell you that this didn't happen -- the possibility that the cache of rifles was destroyed before being completely documented does exist, though the chance of that happening is small -- but we have been able to find no evidence of it."
Independent embedded combat journalist
Michael Yon, who has perhaps spent more time in Iraq than any member of the western media, also discounts the likelihood of the
Daily Telegraph story as being consistent with his experience in Iraq.
Yon, a former Green Beret weapons specialist, wrote, "I've been on many raids and seen literally tons of munitions captured. RPGs, small arms and machineguns of many sorts, hand grenades of many sorts, surface to air missiles, artillery and mortar rounds by the thousands if not tens of thousands between places like Baquba and Mosul (the largest weapons ASP I have seen was in Baqubah at FOB Gabe), but I have never seen a .50 caliber sniper rifle in Iraq that did not belong to Americans."
Michael Fumento, another independent journalist who has spent time embedded with Coaltion forces in Iraq and NATO forces in Afghanistan, likewise stated, "I heard nothing about the use of .50 cal enemy sniper rifles."
For it's part, Steyr-Mannlicher, the Austrian company that sold the HS50 rifles to the Iranian government and was embargoed by the U.S. and British government as a direct result, posted a
press release in March disputing the
Daily Telegraph story.
Dozens of media outlets and blogs (including
this one) had reported the
Daily Telegraph story as proof of Iranian government involvement in Iraq. To date, there is no indication that the
Daily Telegraph has issued a retraction for their apparently false claims.
(Author's note: A special thanks to Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor of the Washington Examiner and blogger at Tapscott's Copy Desk, and U.S. Army Col. Steven A. Boylan, PAO for MNF-I Commanding General David Petraeus, for their assistance in researching this story.)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:08 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ahhh.
At least I only said "Relatively credible" when you offered this as evidence...
(And by the way, hats off to you for publishing this. Left, right or middle, it is highly respectable.)
It strikes me that there are several strands of psychological war going on in and around Iraq. Jihadis, nationalist insurgents, Badr, Sadr, etc, etc. What is notable is that each of these organisations (with the possible exception of the Sadr) have only one line when they push their propeganda.
Except the US. In the US there seem to be two distinct brands of psych-war being fought.
Firstly there is the "Bomb-Iran, everything's coming up roses, just-one-more-push" brand. This seems to be coming out of the US government and is being skillfully placed in media outlets around the world. These guys have a real feeling for narrative (though less regard for facts) and create great storylines of good vs evil, progress and the general worthiness of the cause. These guys have central control of their message to such a degree that they might almost be sitting in the same office.
The other strand, "Iraq is a mess, but we're doing the best we can. We promise you that we are the good guys in this" seems to be coming from the military. These guys have almost no conception of what makes a good story and little central control over their message, but it is always the same message. They release news that is distinctly down at times, and when they release up news it is often confusing or complex (giving US arms to insurgents sounds bad in soundbite but is a damn fine idea in the shifting sands of Iraq, for example)
It is as if these strands are in direct competition. When one says something, the other contradicts it. It is quite bizarre when you think about it. Psych-war is as important as physical war in this sort of engagement. It is as if one group was saying "We need to take this hill" and the other was sending their troops down into the valley. This is about as close to insubordination and rebellion as you can get without actually starting to arrest people.
And the upshot is that the call for frank, in your face evidence is all the more important. We know that someone is making stuff up as they go along. We should probably assume that each strand is occasionally making stuff up for their own reasons. We don't know which is which until we actually see the evidence with our own eyes.
I think that this derives from the fact that the US military has finally come to terms with just how intractable the situation in Iraq is, and many of them consider complicating it by bombing Iran to be utter madness, even if Iran is one of the complicating factors in Iraq. Thus they are taking every opportunity to contradict the Washington storyline with facts and observation in the hope that they will be able to derail the support needed for such an action.
Thus the most potentially damaging effect is that the US military is starting to openly disagree and act against the Washington strategy. When you have a military deciding for itself what is the correct strategy, you have to beginnings of serious social strife. Hopefully they can keep it contained as they have been so far. If the crazies bomb Iran and US soldiers in Iraq start taking vastly increased casualties, all bets may well be off.
Posted by: Rafar at June 13, 2007 04:03 AM (kkgmI)
2
I'm with Rafar. You've earned my respect for this and other postings, as well as your moderation of this blog.
I don't know what's happening in Iraq. I don't know what's happening in Iran.
I do know that the administration has not been straight with us for a long time and that the media is muddle-headed with fluff and obsessed with events vs. policy. So I read a lot on all sides of the issue and try to form my own conclusions based on sources I feel I can trust, which is a very small base to be sure.
That's why I appreciate it when you try to chase down the truth no matter where it falls.
Thanks.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 13, 2007 06:59 AM (kxecL)
3
I am beginning to sense a certain hoplessness about the whole affair. We have two parties that seem to be fighting each other more than a common enemy. We have a totally disfunctional president that does not command the respect of anyone and has obviously lost the ability to lead. We have a press that glories over every set back. There does not seem to be any game plan at all. We even phrase our commentment with an idiotic phrase of "a war on terror". Not focusing our war efforts on specfic countries or religious groups that mean us harm and making the average American citizen just as much of a enemy combatant as the obvious enemy. Our allies are actively selling guns and other implements to those that wish to do us harm and we do not have the power to influence this.
Something has to change. Soon.
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at June 13, 2007 09:03 AM (G5i3t)
4
This post is about an official, under the direct chain of command to the President, stating there is no evidence that these sniper rifles are or have been in Iraq. Yet we have accusations of Government-planted stories, propaganda, by "these guys" that says the contrary. Who are these guys who can so mislead the Telegraph? Commenter Rafar even makes a verbose mystery with sinister implications of all this. What about asking the Telegraph, a UK publication about how this story came to be printed?
Posted by: Fred Beloit at June 13, 2007 10:57 AM (Z7x7c)
5
"Commenter Rafar even makes a verbose mystery with sinister implications of all this. "
Have you not been keeping up with current events? The fact that Washington has been planting stories with favoured journalists in order to promote their foreign policy agenda is hardly a revolutionary claim. It has been demonstrated in open court for goodness sake...
What is interesting is the number of times that these stories have been contradicted by military sources.
This particular arc goes;
1) Anonymous US official makes claims to favoured journalist who prints the scoop uncritically.
2) People start shouting about how this is all the evidence needed to convict the enemy du jour of evil intentions.
3) Named military sources state on the record that they have no evidence to support the claims and that, anyway, they don't make much sense.
"What about asking the Telegraph, a UK publication about how this story came to be printed?"
Do you think that it is possible that an unnamed US official claimed it and the journalist failed to check up on it because it (a) fit his preconceptions and (b) was a nice scoop?
You want it short and simple?
Some factions in Washington want to bomb Iran. They are pushing stories about Iranian actions that support this.
Some factions in the US military don't want to bomb Iran. When they see false or misleading claims about Iranian actions, they contradict those stories.
Thus some factions in the US military are going aganist the foreign policies of some factions in Washington. This is interesting.
Simple enough?
Posted by: Rafar at June 13, 2007 11:11 AM (kkgmI)
6
This said, I hope nobody comes to the conclusion that Iran is not helping out at the very least the Shia. It would be pretty crazy of them not to want to cultivate good relations with them, and supplying weaponry would be part of that. In fact, there's good evidence they're supplying the Taliban now. They actually were part of the anti-Taliban coalition in the late '90 and early 2000s because the Taliban are Sunni and expansionist-minded -- as in expanding into Iran. Their support for them now is simple: bleed America. I think the Iranians will try to bleed us anywhere and everywhere they can. Does that support attacking them? Not necessarily. Once we do that, they can take off the gloves and actually start sending over .50 cals, RPG-14s (assuming they aren't now) and lots of other nasty stuff.
Posted by: Michael Fumento at June 13, 2007 11:11 AM (uZVcT)
7
"It has been demonstrated in open court..." What has? That a U.S. Government official has told the Telegraph, a U.K. publication, to print a false story and they obligingly did it? I'm afraid I missed that story, could you let me know where it appeared so I could read about it? How about I give it to you short and simple: the Iranian Government is doing everything it possibly can to ensure it is bombed, and with UN approval. And, Michael, I certainly didn't mean to say Iran is not supporting the enemy and isn't asking for it. They clearly are. It is just a very good idea to make sure all the Iran intel is correct. The MSM sharks are always on the lookout for fresh meat.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at June 13, 2007 12:15 PM (Z7x7c)
8
Good news, not in Iraq...yet.
Bad news, 800 sniper rifles still under the control of the Mullahs, Qods Force, and their proxies in who knows where(?). Maybe one in your town in Mid America New England or Kahleefornia.
Plus a million or more rounds of High Explosive Armor Piercing Incendiary ammuntion, ... Raufoss invented it, everybody else copied it.
Posted by: Econ-Scott at June 13, 2007 02:44 PM (iz8hx)
9
takes a BIG MAN to admit a mistake!!!
that said there can be NO DOUBT that some in iran are involved with some in iraq at least shiaa groups
suppose someone invaded canada! even if the US Govt didnt get involved plenty private citizens WOULD
who knows if its cause for war time will tell
Posted by: Karl at June 13, 2007 04:42 PM (5zEhw)
10
"What has? That a U.S. Government official has told the Telegraph, a U.K. publication, to print a false story and they obligingly did it?"
No. Perhaps once again I have not been simplistic enough. You see, the sentence "It has been demonstrated in open court for goodness sake..." applies to the preceeding sentence in the paragraph, "The fact that Washington has been planting stories with favoured journalists in order to promote their foreign policy agenda is hardly a revolutionary claim."
Paragrahs are usually used to contain a single concept or argument composed of several sentences you see.
If you don't believe that "Washington has been planting stories with favoured journalists in order to promote their foreign policy agenda" then you ought to read the transcripts of the Libby trial.
"the Iranian Government is doing everything it possibly can to ensure it is bombed, and with UN approval."
No, if it wanted to be bombed it could achieve that by simply openly arming Al-Q, or sending its forces to attack US forces directly, or even to develop nuclear weapons.
I find it odd that you imagine that the Iranian leadership actually want to be bombed. It seems to me that they are performing a tightrope act, continuing to pursue their goals while not doing too much to give the US an excuse to attack them.
Posted by: Rafar at June 14, 2007 03:41 AM (kkgmI)
11
It seems the whole thing was a DOD fabrication; Something which has become all too common. See this Steyr-Mannlicher web page:
http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/index.php?id=4&L=1
Posted by: Rusty Scalf at June 14, 2007 06:04 PM (dH7RP)
12
Read the page, Rusty? the Steyr page was posted in the original article. What lacking is how you manage to jump into the claiming how an Austrian gun company refutation of a poorly researched and sourced English newspaper account is the fault of the American Department of Defense.
Does fire melt steel in your world, Rusty?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 14, 2007 09:00 PM (HcgFD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
At It Again
President Bush is already working the phones for round two of the illegal alien amnesty bill.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
President George W. Bush ’s history of speeches on Immigration Issue can be found at: President George W. Bush’s Record of Speeches
For more information on President George W. Bush ’s position on Immigration issue please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.
Posted by: Project Vote Smart at June 13, 2007 03:58 PM (Z+KDc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeep Jihadi Apologizes, Requests Life... in California
His defense attorney claims he has "a severe mental illness."
The man accused of striking nine people when he drove a vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last year has apologized in a letter sent to the court.
In the letter dated May 20 and sent to Orange County Superior Court, Mohammed Taheri-azar said he is "very sorry for the crimes which I committed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on March 3, 2006. I sincerely regret what I did on that day. Please release me from state custody so that I may pursue my goal of living a productive life in California."
Taheri-azar has pleaded not guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and nine counts of felonious assault.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:11 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, now that he's apologized, we can cut him loose so he can pursue his goal of living a jail-free life.
It'll make room for more guys selling bongs on the Internets.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 08:21 AM (kxecL)
2
Taheri-azar can comfort himself with the knowledge that California will still be there when he gets out. Berkeley, too.
Posted by: Dusty at June 12, 2007 09:05 AM (GJLeQ)
3
I heard about this from WPTF as it woke me up this AM, and my first thought was "aren't there quite a few Islamic crazies out in California? Schools that preach violence?"
Let's hope Easley doesn't buy into this claptrap.
Posted by: William Teach at June 12, 2007 09:10 AM (doAuV)
4
"Please release me from state custody so that I may pursue my goal of living a productive life in California."
We now have a new item for the Defense Strategy Guide™ : The Paris Hilton Defense
Posted by: Dan Irving at June 12, 2007 12:31 PM (zw8QA)
5
What??? He didn't claim he was tortured in jail? Did he forget to do that or will it be in the next letter?
Posted by: 1sttofight at June 12, 2007 01:01 PM (51r8a)
6
That's hilarious. Unfortunately, there's probably some judge that will buy it. Dude needs the same treatment Dahmer got.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 12, 2007 08:27 PM (RLeq1)
7
Since when do people who commit State crimes get to decide where they will be incarcerated?
Posted by: Tom TB at June 13, 2007 07:51 AM (h/YdH)
8
Sorry to burst your bubble, but UNC Chapel Hill is located in Orange County, North Carolina (Hillsborough is the county seat). Hence, the missive by Taheriazar to the court in Orange County.
Posted by: lawhawk at June 13, 2007 10:17 AM (DaNDN)
9
Deception is allowed under islamic law, to fool the infidels...it's called "Taqiyya". This boy is just playin' the game, and the authorities are eating it up.
Posted by: LisaV (aka "Talismen - Lady Crusader against jihad") at June 13, 2007 07:32 PM (jaqG+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Next Protest Slogan?
"No War For Beer!"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:55 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Darn, I thought it was news on a planned invasion of Ireland. Or Germany. Both are good for me.
Posted by: dusty at June 14, 2007 01:56 AM (GJLeQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Still Just Factional Fighting
Hamas is threatening to overrun Fatah positions in Gaza, one day after attacking the home of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and killing the top Fatah official in northern Gaza, Jamal al-Jediyan.
According to Global Security's handy dandy
Civil War Checklist, there are five critieria for a civil war:
civil war: A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
Does each faction control territory?
Check.
Does Gaza have a functioning government?
Check.
Do Fatah and Hamas enjoy some foreign recognition?
Check.
Do they have identifiable armed forces?
Check.
Do they engage in major military operations
Check, and with two attacks directed against Haniya in two days and the new threat issued by Hamas against Fatah, the violence is getting more pronounced each day.
At some point, Rueters, AFP, the Assocaited Press, and other news organizations should begin identifying this clear civil war for what it is.
That day, however, is not today.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:47 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
A Call to Arms
Citing "an increasingly lunatic society that is armed more than ever," The U.K. Daily Express is taking the radical step of calling for British citizens to take up arms.
Did I say citizens?
I meant
police:
Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust which commemorates officers killed on duty, said the dangers faced by PCs everyday are greater than ever.
He said: "We live in an increasingly lunatic society that is armed more than ever. There are knives, there are guns. There are the sorts of weapons out there which were not there when I was a young person.
"The fact that officers are not armed is shocking. Of our 33 memorials, I think 28 officers would be alive if they had been armed."
Victor Bates, whose jeweller wife Marian was killed by robbers in Nottingham in 2003, said: "It is long past the time to arm all our officers."
They're still a very long way from allowing British citizens to defend themselves, but I suppose this could be seen as progress, if you squint.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:17 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Michael Winner and a shopkeeper may be in favour of routinely arming the police, but the police, when polled, are not. Neither are the general population.
Like it, don't like it, there is virtually no public call for general armament of the population, massive support for restrictive laws on gun ownership and at best a minority support for the armament of police officers. It isn't as if the police force have no guns, they have plenty, and specially trained handlers who get bussed in when needed.
Over here we tend to regard guns as dangerous things that should be kept out of people's hands, no matter who that person is, rather than personal protection. We may be naive, but we've got a pretty low gun crime rate.
(Huge burglary rate, of course, but that's the price you pay)
You probably find it weird, but to us the sight of an armed policeman generally fills us with unease. The sight of an unarmed policeman would probably fill you with the same feeling.
Posted by: Rafar at June 12, 2007 08:09 AM (kkgmI)
2
All that is understandable, Rafar. The unstated difference in your entire comparison, which shows in the tone of your comment, is that, on your side of the pond, it is collectivist mindset whereas it is individualist on this side. There are no calls here for the general armament of the people and the departmentalization of police here is such that, if a similar condition existed with the police as yours, a proposal for general armament would receive a quizzical look if not downright derisive comment. Each decision on that subject is up to the individual towns and cities, the counties, the 50 states and the federal government for their respective jurisdictions.
Here, the value to the Republic of a person's life is set, at its core, by that individual, not by the state. The nation from which we drew our principle that "your home is your castle" has reverted to the principle that 'your home is the state's castle'. The monarchy hasn't been neutered, it's only been replaced by a nondescript entity that still enjoys its little tyrannies. That may, in part, be why an armed constable fills you with unease. We pay no mind to whether a policeman here is armed or not because we do not fear them.
CY, its British subjects, not British citizens, but "allowing" is an apt description of where rights are derived from in Britain.
Posted by: dusty at June 12, 2007 12:35 PM (GJLeQ)
3
Rafar, I'd like to associate myself with Dusty's remarks. I was a cop in Vermont, one of our quite rural states. Virtually every house contained at least one firearm, and people who knew how to use them. As a result, gun crime, and person on person crime was quite low.
It was -- probably still is -- utterly normal common to see pickups with two high powered rifles hanging against the rear window. This attracts zero alarm, or attention -- unless it's a particularly nice weapon. Once, while on patrol I saw a 12 year old boy trudging down a dirt road with a rifle in the rain. I gave him a lift home.
What you will NEVER read in our traditional media is that in jurisdictions where carrying a concealed pistol is legal, andwhere a permit to do so is easy for responsible citizens to get, all crime is much lower, especially gun crime, than in "enlightened" jurisdictions that forbid almost everyone to own, never mind carry where, of course, criminals have unarmed victims provided to them by law. That is sheer insanity.
I'll tell you something else. Our female soldiers who have come home from the war are arming themselves in record numbers. Once they have had the experience of having decisive means to defend themselves, and others, they DO not want to give that up. No one in their right mind would.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 12, 2007 05:21 PM (fN1kG)
4
"The monarchy hasn't been neutered, it's only been replaced by a nondescript entity that still enjoys its little tyrannies. "
Painfully true. Daily we allow the state to encroach more and more into our lives. It does allow one moments of low humour (recent calls to put warnings on wine bottles to the effect of "May cause intoxication" for example) but it generally makes me want to throw my hands up. I don't think that it is quite the Stalinist state that you might imagine though
There are a few areas of life where I support strong regulation. Gun control is one of them. While the few cases that do occur are big news, it is almost unheard of for people to be involved with gun crime, the gun murder rate is very low and generally restricted to gang related turf battles (even these are a bit pathetic in comparison to the states).
BTW, the unease over armed police is mainly because guns are such rare and, frankly, distrusted things over here. Not many of us are afraid of the police.
"CY, its British subjects, not British citizens, but "allowing" is an apt description of where rights are derived from in Britain."
Well, we say citizens these days, only pedantic duffers (like Mr Winner, for example) would insist on subjects.
Bill,
I think that the main difference here (and why I don't advocate any particular stance in the US regarding firearms (as if I had the right)) is that the UK is a largely gun-free society. The US is a generally gun saturated society. What works for one would not necessarily work for the other.
A while ago I was reading an article from the states about the handgun ban in the UK and how violent crime had increased, drawing a link between the two and basically saying "See, ban handguns and see what happens". The cultural gap was at fault here because the ban on handguns could not have had any effect on violent crime because no-one walked around with pistols for protection, almost all of them were kept in gun clubs and those that weren't were in big lockers in people's houses, hardly where you need them for personal protection. They were never useful for self defence, but the writer wouldn't know that because he laid his assumpitions about US behaviour onto the UK population. Crime has gone up but the handgun ban didn't have anything to do with it.
I'm just content to know that the only likely weapon I am going to have to face is a knife. I can deal with knives
"Once they have had the experience of having decisive means to defend themselves, and others, they DO not want to give that up. No one in their right mind would."
See, that's where you're right in that we think collectively at times, but you mistake collective thinking for a lack of self-interest. You think "Why would I give it up?" I think "I'll happily give it up if it means that my idiot neighbour doesn't have one either".
Posted by: Rafar at June 13, 2007 04:30 AM (kkgmI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 11, 2007
Cheney Worst Veep Evah
So says John W. Mashek, retired Beltway journalist of four decades and U.S. News and World Report blogger. I'm sure he was completely objective in his reporting, and didn't develop any strong opinions until he began blogging.
And yet as horrible as the Veep is, Cheney's approval numbers are
twice that of Harry Reid.
How disconcerting.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:53 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Cheney didn't and still doesn't know his place vis-a-vis the fourth estate the people had vested with absolute moral authority. That that estate is now disintegrating has nothing to do with their wailing and gnashing of teeth.
A side note, the last time US News and World Report came up in a conversation with a bunch of reporters in the room, (which I'll qualify as a while back) the consensus was that it wasn't a real professional journal. Something about USN&WR's policy of providing interview questions in advance and passing final copy past interviewees prior to publication stuck in their craw. Their disdain was quite remarkable.
I don't know whether that's still the case. As I said it was years ago.
Posted by: Dusty at June 11, 2007 11:29 PM (GJLeQ)
2
Mondale was the worst, hands down. Look at how he let Carter manage things. ...and let us not forget that strong (lol) showing in 1984. Talk about 'where's the beef?' it was more like 'where're the votes?' lol. What a dud.
Posted by: brian at June 12, 2007 07:10 AM (x9rNJ)
3
And I'll bet more people know Paris Hilton's chihuahua's name than they do Harry Reid's.
Or Mitch McConnell's.
I, thankfully, am not one of them.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 08:25 AM (kxecL)
4
Reid and McConnell have chihuahuas?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Posted by: Dusty at June 12, 2007 09:08 AM (GJLeQ)
5
Brian:
To be fair, you can't use Mondale's 1984 campaign either for or against him when you assess his tenure as VP.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 12, 2007 10:34 AM (AE0yP)
6
Dont know who Carters VP was, but ill roll the dice that he was pretty bad.
ANyone catch Al "liar" Gore back in the 90's about the threat of Sadaam Hussein and Bush I's failure to take decisive action against him?
I did. Its pretty funny.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html
Hopefully one day the libs will realize they are being bamboozled
Posted by: TMF at June 12, 2007 01:39 PM (cGtRE)
7
Dont know who Carters VP was
I'm crossing my fingers, hoping that you're joking.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 12, 2007 02:28 PM (AE0yP)
8
Nope- not joking. I actually forgot who it was (i was 7 yrs old at the time....) Now going through the thread (I hadn't before), I see it was Walter Mondale.
So my suspicion was correct. Carter's VP was indeed pretty bad, certainly far worse than Cheney.
And of course, Carter's administration as a whole will go down in history as the worst ever.
Skyrocketing interest rates, oil embargo, "malaise", Iranian hostage crisis/botched rescue mission, proposed arms freeze/detente, etc, etc. the list goes on forever
Posted by: TMF at June 12, 2007 03:03 PM (KTgUG)
9
I'm sure he was completely objective in his reporting, and didn't develop any strong opinions until he began blogging.
Come on: you're snarking the guy for something that you suspect he might have done before he retired.
Anyway, who says that members of the press can't have opinions? Isn't the idea that they try to not to let them influence their reporting?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 12, 2007 08:31 PM (AE0yP)
10
* He trumped up intelligence reports to pave the way for attacking Iraq. And he continues to deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence. THIS IS A LIE.
* His office has smeared opponents of the war who dared speak out. Scooter Libby is headed to prison on this very matter unless Bush pardons him. You can bet Cheney will be urging a pardon. FUNNY HOW WHEN POLS YOU DON'T LIKE SPEAK OUT AGAINST THOSE YOU DO LIKE, IT'S SMEARING. WHEN IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, IT'S SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER.
* He and his buddy Donald Rumsfeldwere the principalarchitects of the failed policies in Iraq. The idea ofinstalling democracy by force is inimical tothe nation's heritage. IS THIS FOR REAL? DIDN'T THE COUNTRY START BY USING FORCE? JAPAN? GERMANY? ANYONE? BUELLER?
* He has helped sink the GOP's present-day fortunes. In the last election, he was against firing Rumsfeld and was opposed even after the voting. Many Republicans said Rumsfeld's tardy departure hurt them at the ballot box. YEAH, I'M SURE THAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE FOR MOST VOTERS.
* His penchant for secrecy knows no boundaries. Early in Bush's first term, he refused to divulge the names of Big Oil executives and others who met with him onenergy policy. Even after he accidentally shot a friend on a Texas ranch, he had to be pushed to admit it. OOOOOOH, HIS PENCHANT FOR SECRECY. SO SCARY. DOES CHENEY WEAR A BLACK CAPE AND HANG IN THE SHADOWS? SCARY. OOOH, I JUST POOPED MY PANTS. HE HAD TO BE PUSHED TO ADMIT IT? LOL! THE PRESS IS PISSED BECAUSE THEY GOT SCOOPED BY SOME LOCAL CRAWFORD RAG.
Honestly, is this the best people can come up with?
Posted by: a reader at June 13, 2007 04:39 PM (LRATA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is Hyperventilating a Team Sport?
If so, I think this guy is shooting for MVP:
Gov. Huckabee, who wants to be President, seems to have no problem with the gulag known as Gitmo. In fact, he says that prisoners would rather be in Gitmo then in the prisons right here in the USA...
[snip]
If Gitmo is better then state prisons in the USA, then we need to shut down every prison in the United States. Gitmo is a gulag, plain and simple. People there are being tortured, and some are dying. There are constant hunger strikes, and no international human rights groups are allowed to monitor the situation down there.
I
covered this ground almost two years ago.
There are indeed prisons in America far worse than Guantanamo Bay, and to label the detention facility there a "gulag" is an abject display of ignorance, showing just how little the excitable author knows about real Soviet gulags, where millions of prisoners were worked, starved, and tortured to death.
Four prisoners have commited suicide at Guantanamo, since 2002, less than one a year, while 400 prisoners in American prisons
commit suicide each year.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:54 PM
| Comments (54)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm happy to hear people in Oz are reading my blog.
and your numbers are misleading. 400 american prisoners out of 2 million each year commit suicide.
in gitmo there are 4 suicides out of a few hundred. and you didnt mention the hunger strikes.
also, if gitmo isn't so bad, why arent any human rights groups allowed there?
oh.. one last thing. the australian man who was at gitmo.. did you read his story? about how he was brutally beaten, and how he was raped by a plastic object?
Posted by: Chris (My Two Sense) at June 11, 2007 01:57 PM (gM/TJ)
2
ok lets close gitmo and just kill every terrerast we catch it would cost us less
Posted by: Rich at June 11, 2007 02:43 PM (EblDJ)
3
I see you are willing to take the claims of terrorists at face value, Chris. I guess we should be thankful that they aren't in real estate, or they could finance their operations for the next decade off all the bridges they could sell you.
The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of claims made by captured terrorists turned out to be false, something else you either forget to mention, or simply don't care to acknowledge.
I notice that you are willing to take their hunger strikes as being very important for some reason. Do you mind telling us exactly what? Paris Hilton apparently tried that route as well. I guess we should set her and them free.
And I notice you aren't willing to back down on your gulag claim, even though it is clearly offensive to those who have even a limited understanding of what actually went on in the gulags. I guess your gross exaggeration is "truthy enough."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 11, 2007 02:54 PM (9y6qg)
4
Bob,
There are plenty of problems with Gitmo. The big one is that we haven't tried any of those people and yet we've held some of them for more than 5 years.
I know you're response will be that these people are enemy combatants. If that's true, and we are at war, then these people are POWs and fall under certain rules, including being seen by the Red Cross or Red Crescent.
If they aren't POWs then they're criminals and have certain rights as well.
The reason we have these protections is not to protect the terrorists, but to protect you and me from a despotic government. Because if our government can sweep up two writers whose only crime was telling a Clinton joke, and hold them indefinitely, then they can do the same to you and me.
I trust that these people are dangerous and that the majority should not be let out, but they should have some legal rights. Not for them, but for us.
We're setting a dangerous precedent in Gitmo and it's one that should give every freedom-loving person pause.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 11, 2007 03:20 PM (kxecL)
5
Hunger strikes or diets? Didn't I read they were averaging about a 20lb weight gain each?
Contrast that with genuine abuse -- the way the Japanese treated allied prisoners during WWII. I think you'd be very hard pressed to produce even a single allied prisoner who exhibited a weight gain of even one pound while in captivity.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2007 03:23 PM (RLeq1)
6
call it whatever you want, whether you want to call it a gulag, or a concentration camp, or whatever you choose, gitmo is illegal.
there is lots of evidence of torture not only at gitmo but the secret cia prisons in europe and the prisons in iraq.
why is it that respected people like colin powell want gitmo closed down immediately?
do you support torture? we used to be america, the shining beacon of the world. now we torture POWs, hold them in secret prisons, and much worse that we dont even know about yet.
Posted by: Chris (My Two Sense) at June 11, 2007 03:35 PM (gM/TJ)
7
Execute the ones we have in accordance with the Geneva Conventions (not in uniform or members of an army).
Close Gitmo.
Execute the rest of the terrorists as we catch them if they are armed or committing crimes.
End of story.
Posted by: old_dawg at June 11, 2007 04:56 PM (NFgCt)
8
The big one is that we haven't tried any of those people
Q: How many German and Japanese POW's and war criminals were tried during the war?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2007 05:57 PM (RLeq1)
9
PA,
The point is not whether you try POWs. You don't. The point is that they're either POWs or they're criminal defendants. Whichever, they have certain rights and expectations of treatment.
We didn't codify torture when faced with Japan or Germany, but we have now. To me, that's shameful.
You may hold us to the barbaric standards of WWII Japan or today's terrorists, but I hold us to a higher standard, one set down by law.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 11, 2007 06:27 PM (tk0b2)
10
Does anybody care that the Red Cross has an office at Gitmo, and they say the conditions have vastly improved? I guess not. Why dont we just make it better, instead of closing it down. You guys don't seem to care about that, its just "close it down", "its bad".
Posted by: jbiccum at June 11, 2007 06:57 PM (Rd4s4)
11
One more question: Chris, have you been to Gitmo, or are you passing judgement on something without having all the facts?
Posted by: jbiccum at June 11, 2007 06:58 PM (Rd4s4)
12
The point is that they're either POWs or they're criminal defendants.
Q: If they're criminal defendants, what US civil court has jurisdiction over events that happened in a foreign country?
Think twice before answering this, and consider what the implications of some OTHER COUNTRY applying the same notion reciprocally to US citizens here in the USA.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2007 07:38 PM (RLeq1)
13
We live in a "democracy" wherein the President claims the power to declare anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and imprison him or her forever, with no recourse to courts or trials or anything that resembles a judicial system.
And "patriots" defend this.
Of course, the term "patriot" is used very loosely here, since the "patriot" in question celebrates the heritage of the only organized rebellion against the United States Government--a rebellion mounted to defend an economic system that was based on owning human beings.
I suppose it's no surprise that someone who believes that it was morally courageous to fight for the right to think of other human beings as property should think that locking up people on the word of one man is acceptable.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at June 11, 2007 07:39 PM (hlK/9)
14
David Terrenoire-- actually, by the Gen. Convention, they're illegal combatants, not POWs. They did not wear uniforms, they did not follow the laws of war, and many are not members of Gen. Convent. signing organizations.
To say they are either POWS or criminals is a false dichotomy-- they are illegal combatants, a designation clearly defined long, long ago. They forfeited their chance to be honorable POWs.
Also-- since when is killing oneself or choosing not to eat the fault of anyone but the chooser?
Does anyone else notice that the "humanitarian" groups are hugely biased?
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2007 07:41 PM (fMX2K)
15
Mr. Scott-- are you trying to look foolish? People who are in the middle of people shooting at us are probably enemies who are fighting, AKA, enemy combatant.
If you really think that the eeeeeevil Bush is going along, randomly grabbing folks and saying "You're an enemy combatant! You're an enemy cobatant! Put down the baby, you're an enemy combatant!"..... come on.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2007 08:35 PM (fMX2K)
16
Of course, the term "patriot" is used very loosely here, since the "patriot" in question celebrates the heritage of the only organized rebellion against the United States Government--a rebellion mounted to defend an economic system that was based on owning human beings.
Need to brush up a bit on your history there, yippy.
The 1898 Wilmington Riot was the only successful coup d'etat in American history, where the North Carolina Democratic Party, in league with the News & Observer newspaper, overthrew the duly elected Republican government of Wilmington North Carolina , killing dozens in the process.
Other than, that, enjoy your sanctimony, if that what turns you on.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 11, 2007 09:05 PM (HcgFD)
17
Mr. Scott has never read the Geneva convention and its definitions, or he wouldn't be embarrassing himself in this manner.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2007 09:55 PM (RLeq1)
18
Purple Avenger- I think you're right. I haven't had the chance to read the whole thing, but as a professional matter-- I was in the Navy-- I made sure to become familiar with what applied to my job. Which is just about everything to do with war, combatant status, terrorism and lawful war making.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2007 10:45 PM (fMX2K)
19
I was in the Navy-- I made sure to become familiar with what applied to my job. Which is just about everything to do with war, combatant status, terrorism and lawful war making.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2007 10:45 PM
Oh yeah? Then you are one illiterate retard, let me clue you and the other moron "humanitarians" here in.
As a member of the U.S. Armed forces:
1. My country is a signatory of the geneva conventions, what country's armed forces are the AQ terrorists in GITMO members of?
2. I follow the rules of land warfare, show one example of AQ doing this just one will do.
3. I carry a Geneva conventions ID card, AQ terrorists do not.
4. I wear a uniform when engaged in combat, AQ does not.
5. I carry arms openly and do not use civilian populations to hide in, AQ does not carry arms openly and they hide among the civilians.
6. I avoid causing civilian casualties with all due diligance even to the point of putting my own life in danger. AQ purposely targets civilians.
As a member of the armed forces of the United States I find it deeply offensive that anyone in this country would put AQ terrorists on the same legal basis as an American service member, as for the notion that the Geneva conventions are to protect us from a despotic Government is BS they are there to protect civilians in war zones and by giving the AQ terrorists a pass you invalidate those same conventions and encourage them to continue murdering innocent people.
Yes you are certainly right we did not treat the Japanese or German illegal combatants this way instead we hung them or shot them their choice.
The scum in GITMO are illegal combatants and have no protections under the Geneva conventions nor the U.S. constitution THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS NOR POW'S!
And by the way show me the proof that we have tortured anyone come on just one little itsy bitsy bit of proof!
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 12, 2007 06:13 AM (q7b5Y)
20
And by the way, if you want to see what torture "really" is I suggest you google the words "Al Qieda torture manual" look at the pictures now that is torture! You friggin morons!
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 12, 2007 06:31 AM (q7b5Y)
21
Old Crow, I linked manual and provided some images form it here.
WARNING: Not for the faint of heart, or for those who don't want to know what true torture actually is.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2007 07:05 AM (9y6qg)
22
"I see you are willing to take the claims of terrorists at face value, Chris."
Erm. Isn't that "Alleged terrorists". Besides, we have claims from several people who were released without charge who also go along with these claims. I suppose that it is possible that, while in Gitmo, they were exposed to enough propeganda that they went along with the claims of mistreatment.
As for comparisons of the treatment of Gitmo detainees with POWs from previous wars, fine, give them POW status. Or try them in civilian courts.
Creating a new legal category and then filling in the blanks is simply not the way to go about this.
Though, honestly, it makes very little difference what is gone about Gitmo now. People's opinions are already formed. Closing it would confirm people's prejudices to them. Those in favour would accuse liberal lefties of undermining security, those against would still complain about the fact that it happened even though it had stopped.
The only advantage to closing it would be that the people there (some almost certainly innocent of any meaningful crime) would get some sort of justice.
Posted by: Rafar at June 12, 2007 07:23 AM (kkgmI)
23
Old Crow,
Calling people morons says more about you than it does about the other commenter.
This is a legitimate debate, carried on right now in the highest levels of government, grappling with the definition of enemy combatant; whether they are covered by the Geneva Accords; whether they are warriors or criminals or a third group entirely; how much power the executive should have; and what protections, if any, should the accused have, some of whom have been deemed innocent after years of detention and set free.
To say, as Old Crow does, that AQ does far worse than we do, something no one here will argue, is irrelevant. We are not debating AQ's conduct. We are debating our conduct as the government acts in our name.
This is why we have laws and why laws are created after debate. These are serious issues, not something that can be condensed into some Jack Bauer vs the Terrorist hypothetical.
The most recent Supreme Court ruling found that enemy combatants are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and the authorization to use force given to Bush by Congress does not give him the authority to create new tribunals but leaves that power with Congress.
In Breyer's concurrence, he emphasized that nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary and Kennedy thought that that the administration's tribunal plans violated military law.
Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented. their arguments said that the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 establishes legislative parameters for Bush's tribunals. Thomas went farthest in his dissent saying that the Supreme Court should tread carefully in military matters and that enemy combatants are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
Alito said the Bush administration's tribunal plans are consistent with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and that there "is nothing in it to prevent a person presumed to be guilty from being arrested and so placed in a position where he can do no further harm..."
But the majority ruled that these prisoners are are protected by the Geneva Conventions and that indefinite detention, mild torture, and extraordinary rendition are illegal.
You can disagree with their findings. I certainly don't go along with every Supreme Court decision (one in particular I could mention, but won't), but the reason I bring this up is to show that smart people, educated people, have spent many days thinking and arguing about these issues and whether you come down on the administration's side or the other side, there are potent arguments for each.
To me, wherever you land, that doesn't necessarily make you a moron. So let's try to elevate this debate beyong schoolyard chest-thumping. Because, frankly, being a badass on a blog is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 07:25 AM (kxecL)
24
No new legal catagory has been created they were called illegal combatants during WWII also, before that they were referred to as spies or sabatuers, these so called people at GITMO were captured on the battle field, they are not POW's nor criminals and deserve no legal protections if they do fine give them the treatment the Geneva conventions call for put them up against a wall and shoot them dead.
This from The American spectator
Special Report
Real Torture
By Jeff Emanuel
Published 6/12/2007 12:08:27 AM
On May 12, near the Sunni stronghold of Yusufiya, Iraq (about 15 miles south of Baghdad), al Qaeda fighters ambushed a coalition patrol, killing four soldiers and abducting three, all from the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team (based at Fort Drum, New York).
Despite warnings from al Qaeda "not to look for the soldiers if [they] wanted them back alive," American and Iraqi forces mobilized almost 4,000 troops to conduct a search for the missing men. The force spent much of the next weeks searching the area around Mahmoudiya, in the much-publicized "Triangle of Death." Though they questioned over 450 people and detained 11 as a part of the probe, the soldiers were, unfortunately, not successfully recovered.
On the morning of Wednesday, May 23, Hassan al-Jibouri, an Iraqi boater, saw a body floating in the Euphrates River. It had "head wounds and whip marks on its back," said al-Jibouri, who alerted police about the discovery. Before the day was over, the body had been identified as being one of the three missing soldiers, PFC Joe Anzack, a 20-year-old from California.
Do you get it yet numbnuts? These so called people do not observe the laws of war they do not have any rights under the Geneva conventions!
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 12, 2007 07:36 AM (ShugL)
25
Some of you people are turning the Geneva convention on it's head. It was to apply to real, legal combattants which are described below. By your reasoning, all a soldier has to do is remove his uniform, not meet the requirements of the convention, and he has better protection than a soldier in uniform, i.e. access to civilian courts.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Posted by: cw at June 12, 2007 08:05 AM (DSeW+)
26
cw, look at this again:
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
This could easily define Al Sadr's militia and some units of AQ. The only questionable points are b and d. But certain units of AQ and the mujahadeen wear very distinctive clothes, recognizable at a distance.
As for d. our president claims under the the theory of the unitary executive that he is the only person who can define the laws and customs of war, regardless of international law.
By unmooring these laws and customs from established international law, he opens up these terms to be defined by anyone claiming executive authority, even Bin Laden. And that makes those rules useless.
Can you see how dangerous this course is?
So, going by what you've posted, it can be argued that the insurgents do conform to section 2 and are then worthy of POW status.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 08:41 AM (kxecL)
27
My GOD you really are clueless or just plain stupid, personnaly I think you are both. Well that's it why bother you obviously don't care about what the fact's are so as Mark Twain once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it just annoys the pig and wastes your time!".
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 12, 2007 08:56 AM (q7b5Y)
28
Guys,
Please debate the issues, and stop the personal attacks.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2007 09:03 AM (9y6qg)
29
Oh no, how will I ever recover from such insightful and pointed criticism? I'm devastated by your wit and cogent grasp of the facts.
An anonymous commenter on a blog has called me clueless and stupid!
I guess I'll just slink away, humiliated by your obvious intelligence and superior strength.
/sarcasm
Oh, and it's spelled personally, not personnaly. Just sayin.'
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 09:08 AM (kxecL)
30
Sorry Bob.
It won't happen again.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 09:14 AM (kxecL)
31
And I still say that you are turning the convention on it's head, by not conforming to definition the combattant is purposly making the issue fuzzy. The GC may apply to Al-Sadr but are any of them in Gitmo? If you are captured on the battlefield fighting US soldiers and are not following the rules set out, including following the rules of war what are you? Also, the other party must be a party to the convention or if they accept and apply the provisions. Don't think beheadings, electril drills in your knee meet the provisions, therefore, they are not eligible even if they meet the definitions, which the don't. As for Bush deciding about the rules of war, using the civilian population as shields, physical torture (drills, blow torches, etc), summary exectution would not meet anyone's definition of rules of war
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Posted by: CW at June 12, 2007 10:07 AM (DSeW+)
32
OK. This actually seems a lot simpler than it sounds. The Geneva convention is clear about prisoner status and it seems obvious that the Gitmo detainees are not POWs.
"Nonprivileged or unlawful combatants may be charged with criminal offenses arising out of their participation in the armed conflict/armed activity, because they are not entitled to the immunity that is often called the "combatant's privilege." Like POWs, they can also be charged with committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and common crimes. or other serious offenses. While nonprivileged combatants are not entitled to the extensive trial rights of POWs under the Third Geneva Convention, they are entitled to a "fair and regular trial" and the trial protections provided by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Nonprivileged combatants are entitled to trial before a "properly constituted, non-political military court," to be informed of the charges against them, to present their defense and call witnesses, to be assisted by qualified counsel of their own choice, to have an interpreter, and to mount an appeal against the conviction and sentence. As an exceptional measure, trials may be held in camera if the security of the state so requires."
To repeat the relevant point, "It is a fundamental provisions of the Geneva Conventions that all detainees are entitled to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." "
I would say that Habeus Corpus, the right to see evidence against yourself and to rebutt that evidence, standard prisoner rights (no enhanced interrogation methods for example) and a timely trial would be basic parts of what we recognise as indispensable.
Any system that imprisons people for 5 years without trail surely can't fulfil these Geneva requirements.
Posted by: Rafar at June 12, 2007 10:20 AM (kkgmI)
33
CW,
Fighters with the Taliban certainly fit the convention category, and some of them are in Gitmo.
The real problem here is the creation of another category of combatant. I'm OK with that, but I want some protections for the innocent and I want it done by legislation, not defined by the whims of George Bush or any other president. That's too much power for anyone.
As for Bush deciding what the rules of war are, our methods of interrogation are classified so how do we know if they fall within the confines of the Geneva Conventions?
I want the rule of law and I want some sunshine in government. I don't think that's asking too much.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 12, 2007 10:41 AM (kxecL)
34
OldCrow-- are you really that stupid? That's not an insult, that is a serious question based on your response to *my* writing.
BECAUSE they are terrorists, not members of any country's military, they can't be Lawful Comb./POWs. BECAUSE they do not follow the laws of war, they are not LC/POWs. BECAUSE they do not carry Gen. IDs, they cannot be LC/POWs.... yeah, carry that ad nausium.
Reading comprehension FTW, jerk. I don't want someone like you on my "side", if they read black, and respond "F*ing white, go to hell!" Take your insults and your utter lack of understanding and go away.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 12, 2007 10:38 PM (fMX2K)
35
Foxfier,
I apologize, the knuckle heads who support these terrorists and then have the cajones to say they have more legal rights than me got me seeing red big time, I really do apologize for the blue on blue fire forgive me.
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 13, 2007 02:07 AM (q7b5Y)
36
Yeah, CW, stop the personal attacks, "yippy."
And please read carefully: "WIlmington, NC" is not the "United States Government." The insurrection that lead to war between the Confederate States and the United States remains the only organized rebellion against the *Federal* government.
I'll match my knowledge of history--and my reading comprehension--against yours any time.
The somewhat predictable thinking on this thread--they're all dirty terrorists so screw 'em--ignores three important issues--which I should think conservatives and patriots would care more about (and would, if Hillary were President).
First, George W. Bush claims the power to designate--without any process or review of any sort--any human being he wishes (even US citizens) as illegal combatants. He does not base this on Geneva Conventions or the Law of War (both of which I have read, by the way), but on his own inherent power as Commander in Chief. Using this argument, he declared US citizen Jose Padilla an enemy combatant, even though he was not captured on a battlefield and was not a "soldier" in any meaningful sense. If EC is defined as "committing a violent crime for political reasons," then the cohort of people subject to indefinite incarceration becomes quite broad. This is the sort of assertion made by dictators, especially when the government begins to associate dissent from its policies with treason, which the Bush Administration routinely does.
Second, he uses this authority to imprison people without giving them access to judicial processes or presenting evidence that they fit his designation or that they are, indeed, terrorists or enemies of the US. Think carefully about this, because it is crucial:
The only criteria for EC designation and imprisonment for life without due process is one man's word!
Since the government cuts these people off from everyone, including lawyers and family, no one knows under what circumstances they were arrested or captured, or whether they are in fact guilty of anything. It is a short jump from rounding up 'terrorists' to rounding up other 'enemies,' such as peace protesters. Since one man's word is sufficient, it is impossible to know whether he uses the power arbitrarily, and it enables a relatively small group of people to "disappear" their political enemies--since they are isolated, no one ever knows just why a particular prisoner is there.
Very few of the people imprisoned at Gitmo are, in fact terrorists or AQ members. Most were handed over by Afghan or Iraqi tribal warlords in order to collect rewards from the US government. They used this to settle local feuds and eliminate family or political enemies. Their crimes, if any, were probably committed against each other.
Finally, our government today operates several concentration camps in other countries (and perhaps here, for all we know) where they hold people they they think are dangerous (and remember, one single person claims the power to define "dangerous"). Many of them are just regular citizens who happened to know someone who participated in some activity. We don't really know how many of these there are, or who is in them, but we do know that they exist, and that the Constitution no where gives our government the power to do this. It witholds this power for a reason: it is the most basic components of totalitarianism.
For a bunch of people who believe that the Second is the most important of the first ten amendments--since we citizens need guns to keep our government democratic--you all seem remarkably complacent about these totalitarian trends. Our government is putting in place the necessary components of citizen repression, and all they lack is a broader definition of "enemy." You may all be too sick with Bush Worship Syndrome to think he can do any wrong, but if you don't believe that an American Government could do such a thing, what do you need the Second Amendment for?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at June 13, 2007 12:49 PM (r9Q9X)
37
Scott- Where has this claim, from the Prez, that he can make anyone an illegal combatant? You've said this four or five times and no link.
*I* think that the US citizens who are caught fighting against us should become *former* US citizens in quick order-- I'm sorry, but if you join a foreign terrorist group to attack the US abroad, why not go whole horse and offically renounce your citizenship? Or have it done for you.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 13, 2007 02:24 PM (fMX2K)
38
Surely you don't seriously believe that I just made up such a charge out of whole cloth.
OK, here we go. First, here is the executive order Bush signed claiming the power to detain aliens upon his own determination that they meet certain criteria. It contains provisions for military commissions, but none for judicial review or for mandating that military commissions actually meet and try detainees.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
Next, here are two articles from CATO (so very liberal!) pointing out that Bush has attempted to claim the same power over citizens, and laying out the dangers to our civil liberties this policy presents.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html
Finally, here is the decision of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals (Jane Fonda wannabees!) in the al-Marri v. Berman case: http://natseclaw.typepad.com/natseclaw/files/4th_circuit_decision.pdf
These very conservative judges point out that the government "maintains that the President has both the constitutional and statutory authority to subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention, and in any event, that a new statute--enacted years after al-Marri's siezure--strips federal courts of jurisdiction even to consider his habeas petition." (Page 5) They go on to state that "For a court to uphold such an extraordinary power ["to sieze and indefinitely detain civilians"] would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution." (Pages 76-77)
George Bush, through executive orders and by directing his justice department's arguments in federal court, has claimed the power to detain anyone he designates as an enemy combatant indefinitely. Courts have told him "NO!" three times.
Take off the Bush Worship Syndrome blinders and look around you at what your government is doing. Perhaps you like the idea of an authoritarian government, as long as it locks up people you don't like. And if you are willing to trade your freedom for safety, just say so. I'm not.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at June 13, 2007 06:45 PM (ApPWM)
39
If I thought you were making it up out of whole cloth, I'd just call you a liar. Moreover, I'd call you stupid, which I doubt.
However, you have not shown where Bush claims he can make anyone an enemy combatant. You have shown where he authorizes foreign terrorists to be treated as such, and you've got several folks guessing on what may go next.
That is NOT "George W. Bush claims the power to designate--without any process or review of any sort--any human being he wishes (even US citizens) as illegal combatants" as you claimed.
Please provide actual proof of the President claiming this, especially as the first link-- the only one actually from the President, I may add-- specifically says The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen who fits in the listed categories.
I don't care what someone else thinks the Prez may do-- I care that you are claiming he has said things and cannot give proof when asked. I don't care what a court has said-- for crying out loud, courts say all sorts of things.
Show me where George W. Bush actually claims "the power to declare anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and imprison him or her forever."
If you can't, but keep claiming it, THEN I'll call you a liar.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 13, 2007 08:34 PM (fMX2K)
40
The best evidence that George Bush claims this power is that he has exercised it. Further, he he has twice attempted to do so against American citizens, the text of his order notwithstanding. When challenged, he directed the Justice Department to argue that he has this power in court. Yet this is not enough evidence that we may have a civil liberties problem. Huh?
Saying this is not enough is a bit like saying that playing golf once a week is not evidence that I like golf, and since I have never publicly announced that I do, I probably don't.
Is this what passes for analytical thought around here?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at June 13, 2007 08:51 PM (Y97Kk)
41
Scott, that is your *interpretation* of his actions.
You are flatly wrong.
For that matter, your example stinks-- to correct it, you'd have to say that "it's a bit like saying that I haven't said I like golf, although I have played it twice weekly"-- it's called a red herring. You're diverting the subject from the claimed accusation-- that he's *claimed* he can do something-- to the related but irrelevant subject of what you believe he thinks.
Insert the word *seems* and you are alright, but you are claiming he actually *said* something he did not. That is lying. Are you still going to stick with that assertion?
For that matter, I'd consider folks who conspire to attack the US traitors, and given that it's a time of war, *I* would use the traditional response. Be glad it's not me in charge.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 13, 2007 10:57 PM (fMX2K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Euphemism Deployed in Gaza
Don't worry; there is zero chance of escalation.
Via
The Australian:
A Member of the Palestinian Fatah movement was thrown off the roof of an 18-storey building today amid renewed clashes between rival factions across Gaza, as Israel vowed to continue its strikes.
Mohammed Suwerki was kidnapped near the seafront in Gaza moments before he was flung to his death from the roof of a building by fighters loyal to the Islamist Hamas movement, which has been locked for months in a power struggle with President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.
It's now a "power struggle."
I've got to hand it to the media. Apparently tired of 13 months of saying that the Palestinian groups are engaged in "factional fighting," the media has come up with a new and interesting way of
avoiding the fact that Hamas and Fatah are engaged in a civil war.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:26 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We were promised that the only reason there was fighting in Gaza was because Israel was occupying it. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. Therefore, there is no more fighting in Gaza.
Someone has some explaining to do.
Posted by: brando at June 11, 2007 02:51 PM (rDQC9)
2
They're just doing glide tests on a new bomb delivery system.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2007 06:26 PM (RLeq1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shaped Charge Captured in Afghanistan
They don't say "EFP" or "explosively-formed penetrator," but based upon how the story is composed and allusions to Iraq, it seems like that is what they are probably talking about here.
A hi-tech bomb, similar to the ones used by militants in Iraq, has been found in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Afghan intelligence sources say the bomb can penetrate heavily armoured vehicles and was set up by a road to target a high-level government convoy.
There is increasing evidence that sophisticated explosives technology is crossing into Afghanistan from Iraq.
Police and government officials say they believe Iran is the source of these so-called "shaped charges".
'Shaped charges'
They have been used widely in Iraq and now it seems they are on the streets of Afghanistan.
These "shaped charges" are designed to explode in a specific direction, to concentrate the force into one point, and their discovery in Kabul is a worrying development for security forces.
To be fair, EFPs are just one kind of shaped charge, and the device found in Kabul may not be an EFP. It is worrisome that the media so quickly tied this device to Iran, and I'd like to know how they made that determination. I suspect that EOD specialists noted characteristics of this device that mimic those devices captured in Iraq to make that determination, but don't know for certain.
Needless to say, it bears watching to see if more charges thought to be of Iranian origin show up in Afghanistan, which could indicate that Iran is attempting to spread its influence eastward.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:27 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is worrisome that the media so quickly tied this device to Iran, and I'd like to know how they made that determination.
They plan on hanging it on Bush as another example of administrative incompetence. Their ability to whitewash the real source has already been established.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 11, 2007 10:21 AM (RLeq1)
2
Not be more pedantic than usual, but shaped charges have been in Kabul for a long time.
An RPG is a shaped charge.
My guess is this is a much different critter, but just calling it a shaped charge doesn't make it high tech. It's just more sophisticated, and much more lethal, than the standard IED.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 11, 2007 01:53 PM (kxecL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Information Underload
Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's comments yesterday on Face the Nation have drawn him quite a bit of attention:
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers...if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them...He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."
"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."
People from the right and left have been quick to issue judgement on his pronouncement.
On
National Review Online, Michael Ledeen states he thinks Lieberman should be our
new Secretary of State because of this comments, while a whole host of liberal blogs have taken the opportunity to use these words against the former Democrat (now Independent) Senator, labeling him "
a tool," a "
neocon," a "
warmonger," and
far worse.
Sadly, while both the right and left have quickly jumped on their respective and predictable bandwagons to either support the Senator or condemn Lieberman’s comments, I've read precious little issued forth in concern for the American military forces ostensibly being attacked with Iranian weapons, or by militiamen that are rumored to be trained at facilities within Iran.
Shouldn't we be debating whether or not to attack Iran based upon the threats to American servicemen? This simply is not a conversation being had.
It doesn't seem that either side wants to ask the hard questions that must be asked.
We've heard time and again that Iran is shipping precision-made EFPs (Explosively-Formed Penetrators) into Iraq to militias targeting American armored vehicles. We've heard from the military that the homemade EFPs manufactured in Iraq are not made with enough precision to perform properly against American armor, and that only those EFPs made professionally in Iran can cut through the armor of even our main battle tanks.
Shouldn't we in the blogosphere be asking for details, asking the military to completely explain, in excruciating detail, the technical characteristics of these EFPs that identify them as being Iranian in origin? Shouldn't we be asking for this conclusive proof that the Iranian government must be behind the manufacture of such weapons?
We've heard time and again that other Iranian ordnance, from mortar shells to artillery rounds to sniper rifles to surface-to-air missiles, has been captured in Iraq. Shouldn't we be asking characteristics identify these weapons as exclusively Iranian in origin, and then ask if they could be filtering into Iraq in any other way than with the assistance of the Iranian government?
We've heard time and again that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qods Force is actively engaged in training and equipping militias in Iraq; shouldn't we be pushing for hard evidence of such a connection, and debating whether or not the evidence of such connections is indeed an act of war worthy of a political, economic, or military response?
What precisely is Senator Lieberman asking for? Is he asking for American special operations units to insert into Iran to capture evidence from suspected EFP manufacturing centers? Is he asking for American air assets to attack and destroy the suspected terrorist training facilities at
Imam Ali base near Khorram Abad, or for strikes on Revolutionary Guard bases, training facilities, or leadership targets?
We should be asking these questions, but it seems too many in the blogosphere are siloed into their positions, firmly for or against a strike against Iran based not on the threat posed to American, British, and Iraqi forces, but based upon their own domestic political objectives and agendas.
The questions we should be asking should revolve around the mortal threat Iranian weapons and training either do or do not pose to our troops and that of our allies. We should be asking for hard evidence that such weapons and training are being provided by the Iranian regime. We should be pushing the military, the media, and our leaders to provide us as much information as possible, so that we can
intelligently discuss whether or not the Iranian government is either directing or allowing actions against our forces in the region, and what an appropriate response to such a threat would be.
But we aren't doing that in the blogosphere, or in the media.
We've chosen our positions, and have determined our support or opposition to actions against Iran based upon very little but our own preconceived notions and political ideologies, and with little regard to the threat posed to our national security, the security of Iraq, and the security of our troops who may be facing Iranian weapons and Iranian-trained militiamen and insurgents.
Should we consider attacking Iranian personnel and facilities for their involvement in Iraq? I, for one, don't have enough information yet to make a judgement for or against such a strike.
I wish my fellow bloggers and members of the media would pressure our politicians and the military to produce the answers we require to develop an informed opinion, though apparently, many don't feel that being informed is necessary at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:30 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"We should be asking for hard evidence that such weapons and training are being provided by the Iranian regime. We should be pushing the military, the media, and our leaders to provide us as much information as possible, so that we can intelligently discuss whether or not the Iranian government is either directing or allowing actions against our forces in the region, and what an appropriate response to such a threat would be."
I got heavily slated last week for saying exactly the same thing right here.
Indeed, asking for evidence was "mainlining the kool-aid" I was accused of being a "paranoid" or "conspiracy theorist goofiness", being in "bad faith". I hope that you can avoid these pitfalls.
What is to be done about facts is a completely seperate issue from the establishment of those facts in the first place.
Like I said, I want to see cold hard evidence, not mere assertion.
Posted by: Rafar at June 11, 2007 09:47 AM (kkgmI)
2
Senator Lieberman’s voting record on military issues can be found at: http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53278&type=category&category=47&go.x=11&go.y=8
Senator Lieberman’s history of speeches on action in Iran can be found at: http://vote-smart.org/speech.php?keyword=Iran+action&daterange=&begin=&end=&phrase=&contain=&without=&type=search&can_id=53278&go2.x=0&go2.y=0#Results
Senator Lieberman’s ratings from special interest groups on military issues can be found at: http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53278
For more information on Senator Lieberman’s position on military issues please visit http://www.vote-smart.org or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.
Posted by: Project Vote Smart at June 11, 2007 05:17 PM (Z+KDc)
3
Let me respond to some of the questions that you are asking to be asked. Isn't that kind of "some critics say"... but I digress. The sniper rifles that you mention were tracked by serial number. The Swiss government, ignoring a request from our embassy not to sell them snipper rifles, proceeded to sell a significant number of top of the line military snipper rifles to the government of Iran for "anti-terrorist" operations. A number of these rifles, sold to the Iranian government and transfered to their army, have been captured in Baghdad. They were cross checked by serial number with the Swiss government, who verified that they were part of those sold to Iran.
The EFPs. I have seen both the Iranian imported (including the PERSIAN factory markings on the explosive content)and the locally produced. It is night and day. The Iranian EFPs are made of machined components and copper blast plates. The Locally produced are rough cut, welded and made of anything from surplus acetylene tanks to old cast iron water pipe.
The Army has given reporters briefings with the actual EFPs sitting on the tables for reporters to touch and compare. No matter, reality is subject to editorial needs.
Posted by: Rey at June 12, 2007 01:28 AM (oWGMo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 08, 2007
High School Refuses To Let Marine Wear Uniform to Graduation
In the Raleigh News & Observer:
Pfc. Eric Hile, 17, graduated from the school in January, but returned from his training to walk across the stage and take his diploma.
He wanted to wear his dress blues under his gown, but Principal Jerry Smith insisted he follow school rules, which require that all graduating students wear khaki pants, a dark tie and a white shirt.
"We have a standard policy," Smith said. "Everyone dresses the same for graduation."
But Elizabeth Hile, Eric's mother, said wearing his uniform is an important show of patriotism.
"I can understand that some kids want to wear shorts and a T-shirt. I get that," Hile said. "But he is a United States Marine. It's a show that he is so proud to be in the U.S. military."
I've been to several high school graduations in North Carolina, and I've
never seen school officials enforce graduation dress code policies rigorously. Principal Smith could have very easily granted Pfc. Hile an exception, and I think most here would feel that such an exception in this case is well deserved for a proud young Marine.
Should anyone
politely like to tell Principal Smith what they think of his decision, he can presumably be contacted at Clayton High School: (919) 553-4064.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:02 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is ridiculous. He'd be wearing a gown over it anyway.
Posted by: Trish at June 08, 2007 03:17 PM (0mSZV)
2
If it were up to me, he'd be allowed to wear the uniform, but I'm a teacher and I know that if you lay down a rule you need to stick with it or the can of worms has been opened. I deal with this kind of thing every single solitary day. (Not the Marine thing, obviously, but the "Why can't I..." thing.)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 08, 2007 07:08 PM (T5ngB)
3
No, Doc,
Emerson said it best:
A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The difference between the DRESS uniform of one of our country's armed forces, and whatever else this policy is intended to prevent is obvious to any thinking, educated person, which is what I would have thought High School principals are supposed to be.
This idiot principal is equating USMC dress blues with blue jeans. He seems to be lacking in either judgement, or the courage to exercise it.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 08, 2007 08:03 PM (fN1kG)
4
Consistency, however hobgoblin-like it may be, is the only way to deal with kids.
I guarantee you that if this guy had been allowed to wear his blues to the graduation, there would have been at least one parent at the next school board meeting complaining that the principal had let one kid violate the dress code, but he hadn't let her daughter wear the blah blah blah.
Again, I would have let the kid wear the uniform, but I understand precisely where the principal is coming from.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 08, 2007 09:41 PM (T5ngB)
5
This is not a kid. This is a United States Marine who signed his name on a paper stating he is prepared to die for YOU! The principle is wrong!
Posted by: csasarge at June 08, 2007 10:42 PM (2sjvI)
6
I'd flip'em off and tell'em to mail it to me.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 09, 2007 05:00 AM (Sr5ZD)
7
"This idiot principal is equating USMC dress blues with blue jeans. He seems to be lacking in either judgement, or the courage to exercise it"
Ditto. Since many educators are educated but not smart, it would probably be easy for somebody with an agenda to convince him that a Marine dress uniform is equivalent to blue jeans and T-shirts. What a maroon. [sic]
Posted by: Brian at June 09, 2007 07:19 AM (x9rNJ)
8
csasarge:
There's no need to haul out the capitals and exclamation marks.
Yes, he's a Marine, but he's seventeen. I've never met a seventeen-year-old who wasn't a kid, and I've known one hell of a lot of seventeen-year-olds. You can be a Marine and a kid at the same time.
What if he'd joined the fire department? Can he come in his fireman's outfit? They're willing to die for me, too, and god bless 'em. What if he'd been accepted to a premed program in college? Can he wear his scrubs? Doctors save our lives; that's important, too.
I get the point that you guys are trying to make, but I'm telling you that you have do deal with kid-related issues differently than you deal with things in the rest of the world.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 09, 2007 08:18 AM (LYdyX)
9
What line of work are you in, csasarge? It bears on the discussion at hand.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 09, 2007 08:42 AM (LYdyX)
10
First. I don't think the powers that be would approve if this young man was to show up at his graduation from boot camp wearing parachute pants, nikes, and a grateful dead tee-shirt. He is expected to show up at the prescribed place, at the prescribed time, in the prescribed uniform. The same holds true for his high school graduation. Prescribed place, prescribed time, prescribed uniform.
Second. I don't think it's proper for any military uniform to be worn UNDER anything that is not a part of approved dress such as a raincoat or overcoat.
The young man should go through the ceremony by the rules and afterwards, shed the civies and do the post graduation stuff in his uniform. Once he's got his diploma they have no hold over him.
Posted by: Tbird at June 09, 2007 10:09 AM (1gsex)
11
If the school is always consistent with their code I have to side with the code. I personally would immediately change the rules to allow military uniform of active and reserve/guard personnel to be worn.
Posted by: Mekan at June 09, 2007 11:44 AM (mzFPd)
12
Eh, I think his plan for a compromise is good. Change after the actual ceremony. Not because of the dress code, but because you really shouldn't be wearing anything over A's anyhow. See AR670-1 (For the Army anyway, don't know what the Marine reg is but I'm sure it says the same thing.)
Now, if the rules were such that you could wear dress uniform INSTEAD of a gown, that would be fine, IMO.
1SG(R, USA
Posted by: Mike at June 09, 2007 01:57 PM (xZH2c)
13
Doc--
As a matter of fact, you can't be a Marine and a kid at the same time.
Furthermore, I don't see the reason for the dress code at graduation anyway. The entire point of graduation is that these students are now adults, who are capable of making their own way in the world. Having a dress code seems to be merely a way for the school to continue to exercise control over those whom they are ostensibly letting go.
Posted by: Trish at June 09, 2007 06:09 PM (08iHq)
14
I give up. You win. As soon as a kid puts on the uniform, he has the wisdom of Solomon and the experience of the ages. Every kid. In fact, when that kid put on the uniform, he suddenly became 45 years old. I should go to him for advice the next time I face a personal problem. I'm sure he'll have some sage words for me.
Starry-eyed patriotism can be a good thing, but when it gets in the way of rational discussion, it's just a pain in the ass. Why can't it be enough that a seventeen-year-old is doing a good thing by joining up--why does he have to be a superhero as well?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 09, 2007 08:06 PM (LYdyX)
15
I agree with Mekan, if the school has always been consistant with their dress code, then I look at this a little different, however, I would also change the code immediately or at least compromise in this case. Besides, in our world today, its porbably got more to with being "Politically Correct."
Doc Washboard, no one is saying the 17 year old walked out of basic a 45 year old full of wisedom. But this young man is more than likely on his way to a war zone. I also have the utmost respect for Firemen and Police Officers, but I know you will not see a 17 year old in one of those uniforms trying to cross the stage to get his diploma. And last, yes he is 17 years old and is still a very young person, but when he came out of basic, he was no longer a kid. A kid, dosn't make it through something like that. Yes there are those individuals who do and go on to make fools out of themselves and everyone around them, but, look at our politicians.
As for your question, I have been in the military since 1984. I was a Law Enforcement official prior to that for the State of Texas. Now Im sure that you may call me biased or somthing and that is fine. I may be, however, I just think this principal is more worried about his image and that of his school than anything.
V/R
Sarge
Posted by: csasarge at June 10, 2007 07:28 AM (2sjvI)
16
csasarge:
I just wanted to know whether you worked in the schools. I've been a teacher for seventeen years, and I know from hard, ugly experience that if you bend the rules for one person, you immediately have kids and parents yammering at you about how you bent the rules for one kid and that's not fair and why aren't you bending the rules for the kid who wants to come in a pair of assless chaps? And then you have people going to the school board and blahdidy blahdidy blah.
I've been there. I know how it works. Like I said, if it were up to me, the kid would have worn the uniform, but, as a cog in the machinery of the education industry, I know that you have to stick by your word. Change the rules for next time, but stick with the rules you have this time.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 10, 2007 08:04 AM (P1/Ua)
17
Doc Washboard shames himself.
The issue isn't maturity, the issue is respect.
As for maturity itself, this young man ("kid" is as much an insult as referring to Doc as "boy" would be) is considered mature enough to make life or death decisions every day- including his own life. He is mature enough to accept full responsibility if he errs in those decisions. That sure sounds mature enough to make his own decisions about dress; at least it does for this civilian.
Posted by: DaveP. at June 10, 2007 08:15 AM (E3w3n)
18
So we have the point: Doc Washboard doesn't want this Marine- this young man who will serve his country, who will risk dying for his country, to wear his uniform because it might mean work for the TEACHERS. They might have to say "No assless chaps" (because that is the direct equivalent of a Marine uniform in Doc Washboard's mind); they might even have to write a memo about it.
Wow. And HE complains about 'lack of maturity'.
Go find a nice bridge to hide under, buddy.
Posted by: DaveP. at June 10, 2007 08:21 AM (E3w3n)
19
Dear DaveP:
Your message comes through loud and clear: "I know you have rules, but they don't apply to me because I want what I want, and I want it now, and if you don't let me have what I want NOW, then I'm going to roll on the floor and scream and cry." Do you need someone to change your poopy diaper, too, buddy? Does Wuzzawuzzums have a tummyache?
What are you, twelve? This is the same crap I get from seventh-graders every year. "I don't see why..." and "It's not fair that..."
Stop being a twit and realize that you live in a society where we follow rules laid down by other people even though we may not like them. We can change the rules if we don't like them, but we follow the rules that exist.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 10, 2007 09:13 AM (P1/Ua)
20
Doc Washboard has it right rules are made for a
reason.If a person or a group have a problem
with a rule change it. Till then follow
them to the letter...The young man is about to
be in situations where you follow rules or he
will find himself in a world of S**t...He is at
the start of becoming a "MARINE"but he is still
just a "BOOT". God willing he will come thru all
in one piece and very much alive...
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at June 10, 2007 10:33 AM (L4HGI)
21
The word "kid" is used as an insult for servicemen all the time. It's not going to stop anytime soon.
Posted by: brando at June 10, 2007 01:14 PM (rDQC9)
22
The word "kid" is used as an insult for servicemen all the time.
I'm sick to death of those on the Right telling me what I mean and how I feel. Peddle you projection elsewhere, buddy. If you're ever wondering, I'll tell you what lies behind my words. Until then, put a lid on it or write about something you actually know.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 10, 2007 03:16 PM (P1/Ua)
23
Just simmer down. I'm not telling you what your opinion is, because I don't do that sort of thing, that's beneath me.
I'm not on the right. I'm just me. Just like you're you.
I'm sure you know that "kid" is a diminutive term used to exclude someone from even being considered an adult. Kids aren't accountable for their actions. Adults are. When folks say "kid" or "kiddo" or "son", it's often used to insult or degrade them to a less then adult status, so they are not to be taken seriously. I've had people do that to me many times. And I have no doubt that it will be done again.
The argument where you go straight to a 45 year old with wisdom on account of donning a uniform is the False argument of Excluded Middle. Let's agree to not do that.
There's no need for ad-hominem attacks, or to break things down into a left/right concept. It's much better to openly talk about things on the merit of the individual topic.
As for the actual topic, I think that it depends on how rigorously this rule has been enforced in the past. If this school or principal has rigorously enforced this rule, then you have to wear what they say. If this rule instantly got firmed up because a Marine wanted to wear his blues, then that might be cause for concern. In the end, it's the Principal's call.
Posted by: brando at June 10, 2007 05:01 PM (rDQC9)
24
Sorry I'm late to defend Doc Washboard.
Not that I agree with the rule. I think the rule is incredibly tight-a**ed. But it's the rule and Doc is right.
I also agree with Tincan Sailor. This Marine is just entering into a world of big-time rules that may or may not make sense at the time but he'd best follow them.
Or, from another point of view that I haven't seen posted here, let the Marine engage in civil disobedience if he feels that strongly about wearing his blues. Then take whatever punishment the school feels obligated to dish out.
This is America, built by people who broke rules they thought were unjust and by breaking them, got them changed. Sometimes.
That's what freedom's all about and I say hoo-uh to that.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 10, 2007 06:16 PM (tk0b2)
25
Sorry, brando. I've been taking that kind of thing on the chin recently, and I'd had my fill.
I say "kid" not because I want to make some political point, but because a seventeen-year-old who hasn't yet graduated from high school is, to my mind, a kid. I personally have three children that age or older, and to me they're kids.
When my wife gave birth to our eldest (and I defy anyone to tell me that motherhood is not a grindingly responsible proposition) she was seventeen and I was nineteen--we were kids.
As I trudge slowly through my forties, more and more people seem like kids. I can barely believe it when I see some wet-behind-the-ears 23-year-old enter the teaching profession. I know I felt like a grownup at 23, but perspective changes.
Far from using the word "kid" to make some pet political point, I can't even imagine what political point would be made with the word.
(As an aside: what happened to "those brave kids" we always heard about who saved us from fascism during WWII? I've read and heard that term a million times over the years in that kind of context, and it has always been more a term of endearment than anything else. I never heard about anyone complaining about the term being applied back then.)
Some poster up above said that the whole thing "IS ABOUT RESPECT!!!11!!!" I agree, but not for the reason the he would like. It's about respect for the rule of law, which is what we're supposed to be about here in the old USA, and which is an important concept that we try to instill in kids each day. For students, teaching respect for the rule of law takes the form of arguments about dress code, the right to eat in class, and so on, rather than the bigger issues they're going to have to face later.
Some people never get that, and they're the people who do things that make themselves happy but don't do much for those around them: they run red lights; they change lanes without using their signals; they go through the "9 items or less" lane with 20 things in the cart; they cut in line at the movie theater; they scream at coaches when their kids don't get playing time; they go to the school board to complain about their kid's B+ in history. In short, they ignore all the things that we do in our society to smooth out the rough edges where people come in conflict with each other.
I'm sick of these people.
This Marine will survive not being allowed to wear his dress blues under his graduation gown, and maybe he will have taken another step toward being the kind of adult that we want running things in our world.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 10, 2007 07:08 PM (P1/Ua)
26
Everyone on here has a good point. I don't really think anyone is disagreeing with Doc. I for one am not disagreeing with you sir. My concern, and it seems to be the concern of most of the folks posting on this issue is whether or not there has been consistancy on the part of the school and the principle. If there has been, so be it. I still think that the school should look at the issue and maybe revise their policy, but that is another time. Many of us are sick and tired of changes being made for the sake of "political correctness". I truely believe that PC is going to destroy this nation or at least play a large part in its destruction.
Now, for the sarcasim and names thrown Doc's direction, I don't appreciate that either. Be adults. This is not the most serious issues of the day, but I do feel it is one to be addressed. Just be civil about it.
Again Doc, its not the policy but the motive that concerns me. If it is a well established and consistant policy at that school, then the young man should abide by it. Just for my benefit, does anyone know if the young Marine has even complained or did some one else complain for him?
Posted by: csasarge at June 10, 2007 08:53 PM (2sjvI)
27
Given what you just wrote, you and I probably share the same views on a lot of stuff. It internet is an odd thing. It's really easy to escalate things, but really hard to de-escalate.
I’ve noticed a lot of the same behavior that you’re talking about, and I think the exact inverse in regards to age. I usually see it in the baby boomer or the weakest generation. From my point of view they have a lot of unhealthy sense of entitlement. I think the young crop is really strong.
Posted by: brando at June 10, 2007 09:17 PM (rDQC9)
28
Doc, I tend to agree with you.
One of my last tours was as an RDC. That's a boot camp Company Commander (Navy equivilant to a Drill Sargent). One of the things we tried to instill was to follow the rules laid out for everyone. The young Marine should follow the dress code, then change afterward.
As far as the kid comment goes, well, we always called them our kids, kiddies, etc... Though once they graduated they were young Sailors. We still thought of them as kids. Wasn't ment to be thought of as a diminutive term or anything bad. It just was the way we looked at it. I guess that was because we were old enough to be their fathers or mothers.
Posted by: Retired Navy at June 11, 2007 05:36 AM (Mv/2X)
29
The principal is right whether we like it or not. A dress code is a dress code. Period. It took courage to stand up to the criticism he probably received (and is receiving from some posters) for sticking to the rules. A uniform is a uniform whether Marine clothing, blue jeans or miniskirts.
Posted by: Retired Air Force at June 11, 2007 05:00 PM (BipAx)
30
The mother is an idiot complainer about everthing and she is empowering her son to be an idiot complainer as well.
Posted by: clayton staff member at June 11, 2007 07:50 PM (U1H98)
31
The mother is an idiot complainer
Now I'm surprised. I think I'm going to have a heart attack and keel over from the friggin' surprise. I haven't met any idjit complainer mothers before over the course of 17 years in the classroom.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 11, 2007 10:28 PM (Uj0hD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Bloodshed on The Way In Iraq
JD Johannes makes some predictions about the "surge" in Iraq leading to a wider war before peace is achieved.
I don't think he's probably too far off the mark.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:55 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Silky Pony's Six-Point Plan Against Terrorism
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards has posted a six-point outline of his strategy for combating terrorism on his campaign Web site.
Let's take a look at what he's offering, point-by-point.
"Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century"
- Force Structure: The force structure of our military should match its mission. The Administration's mismanagement of the military has not only breached the faith at the highest levels—it has led to a very dangerous situation for our security. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year's rest. Edwards believes we need to ensure that our force structure is well equipped for the challenges of the new century. We must have enough troops to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop. As president, Edwards will also double the budget for recruiting and raise the standards for the recruiting pool so that we can reduce waivers issued for recruits with felonies, which have skyrocketed under President Bush.
Stripping the politics out of this statement (if that can actually even be done) and looking solely at the policy, Edwards is suggesting that our troops need a full year's rest between deployments, that our troops need to be "well-equipped," that our standing military needs to be larger, that we need to deploy more troops to Afghanistan, and that we need to significantly increase recruiting and standards for those recruits.
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall history, the idea of our soldiers needing a year between deployments seems to be a modern phenomenon. Our soldiers in the Continental Army did not get year-long rest breaks in the Revolutionary War, the World Wars, or any other conflict in this nation's history until the current war in Iraq. I seem to recall that units were sent into battle, fought, and took brief "R&R" breaks of much shorter durations during a major conflict, sometimes lasting just a few days or weeks, and other times lasting months.
By way of example, World War II's "Band of Brothers,"
Easy Company, 506th PIR, went through several weeks or months of combat, with several weeks or months of training or R&R between combat deployments.
Most books I've read on military history (most of which were of this time frame) followed similar patterns. Unless pulled from combat for extensive training for a fresh assault, most units I recall reading about rarely, if ever, received a year off after a tour of combat. Is a full year between deployments truly needed?
I'm not the person to answer that question, but I can tell you that I cannot easily find a record of any large unit in any military in world history that consistently got a year off between combat tours. It would seem to me (admittedly as a civilian) that a year's rest would leave troops rusty, and in the kind of counter-insurgency operations we are now fighting where relationships with local communities are key, it means that the troops would have to start over and establish new relationships with every deployment. To me, sending home entire units for a year at a time seems very unwise.
I don't think anyone will argue with Edwards' platitude that our troops need to be "well equipped." How can you argue with that? But the simple fact of the matter is that our soldiers are already by far the best-equipped military in world history. Period. Edwards presumably want to make them bullet-proof, to avoid criticism when soldiers die. But soldiers with enough armor to be impervious to enemy fire are soldiers that lack the mobility to be effective in combat. Well-equipped does not mean making our soldiers over-armored to the point of being ineffective.
I do agree with Edwards on several points, holding the same opinion that our military should be larger than it currently is, and that we should seek higher quality recruits, and spend the extra money to attract them.
Now, on to point two.
"Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods"
- Intelligence Strategy: We must aggressively gather intelligence in accordance with proven methods. Valuable information can be gained through interrogation, both about past and future attacks, and we must do everything we can to gather this information to keep us and our allies secure. At the same time, we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, Edwards will immediately address the issues that have become blemishes on America's image in the world by closing Guantanamo Bay, restoring habeas corpus, and banning torture.
Against, once we strip out the politics from this statement we are left with something like policy, and that policy is...don't be evil.
Well, that’s all well and good if you're running to be president of Google, but the reality of the matter for POTUS is a bit more complex that perhaps "Senator Gone" misunderestimates. I don't know of anyone who advocates wholesale, widespread torture, but for Edwards to intone that waterboarding of senior level operational commanders is wrong if a major attack is imminent, is nothing less than moral abandonment, stating that principles are more important than American lives in any and all circumstances. This is simply wrong.
Further, Edwards betrays a childlike misunderstanding of our enemies if he actually thinks terrorists have ever given any consideration to international law, or that by treating terrorists with kid gloves, we will somehow influence their actions. Frankly, this platitude shows him to be an unserious, lightweight candidate, and perhaps somewhat dangerous.
His "blemishes" comment simply affirms he is far more interested in symbolism than results.
"Hold regular meetings with top military leadership"
- Meetings with Military Leadership: The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. As president, Edwards will institute regular, on-on-one meetings with top military leadership. He will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management that has been demolished by the Bush Administration: military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions.
This is apparently meant as a swipe at George W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld, and perhaps one that they deserve.
What it does establish is that Edwards seeks to be very "hands on" if elected. As I recall, that didn't work very well with LBJ. Edwards comment here is, of course, also directed at the fact that many generals have disagreed with how the current war has been fought.
Edwards indicates that he will try to listen to most or all generals. If Edwards sincerely means to listen and attempt to assuage the misgivings and differences of opinions among all generals, he will "lead" us into paralysis, and that the bold stokes of a Patton or a Grant will be ignored over a safe, consensus position... a self-imposed Pentagon quagmire. I do not find that encouraging in the least.
"Create a "Marshall Corps" to stabilize weak and failing states"
- "Marshall Corps": Weak and failing states create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability that creates security dangers for the U.S. and our allies. As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions. He will also implement new training for future military leadership and create a undersecretary for stabilization and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.
We've already seen the opposition for such as unit; Iran calls their version the Qods Force of the Revolutionary Guard. Edwards wants to impose an opposing Girl Scouts-Lite version of this to spread peace, joy, and puppies. Yea! A slightly more charitable interpretation is that he envisions a cross between the Corps of Engineers and the Peace Corps, or the creation of something like the Navy Seabees, but populated with social workers. I'm not sure what he is actually proposing here, and suspect he isn't sure, either.
"Rebuild equipment"
- Rebuild Equipment. Over 1,000 vehicles like tanks and helicopters have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use. Our forces are not equipped to meet the challenges presented to them. As president, Edwards will re-invest in the maintenance of our equipment so our strategy against terrorists is as effective as possible.
Edwards has latched onto the concept that stuff gets blown up in war, and he wants to reinvigorate the motor pool. Such
insight.
His statement "Our forces are not equipped to meet the challenges presented to them" means one thing to me; as threats emerge, Edwards will constantly push our military procurement branches to rush willy-nilly after the Threat of the Day.
We're being hit with IEDs? Up-armor our Humvees, and buy billions of dollars in new armored trucks (like
MRAPS). When the enemy builds larger IEDs, Edwards will rush to upgrade to larger MRAPS or like vehicles, and so on, and so forth, until we are left with battlefield battleships that lack the mobility to go anywhere quickly or stealthily, and by the way, are too expensive to justify sending into combat. And just so you know, EFPs tend to make those inside such heavily armored vehicles
more likely to die than vehicles with no armor at all, due to
spalling.
We do try to reduce the threats to our soldiers as much as possible of course, which is why our soldiers are the most heavily armored force in terms of both personal and vehicle armor in human history, but Edwards and many other candidates on both sides don't want to deal with the reality that soldiers die in war, nor do they seem to understand that there are many circumstances where armor can and should be sacrificed for mobility and flexibility for soldiers to be effective. I don't think Edwards grasps that concept in the least.
"Create a National Security Budget"
- National Security Budget: The military budget itself also needs substantial reforms to keep us as safe as possible and to deal with 21st century threats. Today, dozens of agencies perform overlapping tasks, and there is no central, overall accounting of all security activities performed by all relevant agencies. We have nuclear proliferation programs in the Defense, State, and the Energy departments, and more than 15 different security assistance programs, running out of both the State Department and the Defense Department. As president, Edwards will implement a new National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies.
Nowhere in this statement does Edwards pointedly say he will consolidate any of these over-lapping programs, he just insists that we need another layer of bureaucracy inserted on top of it. Were Edwards actually willing to consolidate some of these activities and streamline elements, I could actually get behind him on this. that isn't his intention, however. He simply betrays a belief that more government is a more effective government.
Hold on to your wallets.
Update: Captain Ed notes that Edwards' Marshall Corps" is a modern day Children's Crusade, and may face the same results. The NY Sun is
similarly harsh.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:13 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This idiot turns my stomach. He is such a flaming hypocrit.
Posted by: csasarge at June 08, 2007 01:18 PM (2sjvI)
2
The Continental Army was a volunteer organization, as is today's Army. The soldiers of the Continental usually signed an enlistment for a set period of time. At first, the enlistments were only for one year, which led to a major manpower shortage at the end of the year. The Army of WW2 was not a volunteer army. Today's Army is, once again, a volunteer organization. Do you see where I am going?
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at June 08, 2007 01:38 PM (oC8nQ)
3
Prell boy isn't smart enough to be a lawyer, much less president. Notice in his "force structure" statement he says that American forces must be rebuilt to be ready to deploy in Afghanistan and "any other trouble spots". Does he not realize that Iraq is one of those trouble spots. Tell me why people follow these morons!
Posted by: MAJGross at June 08, 2007 01:40 PM (Da6a7)
4
Actually, English units and German units in the Second World War were pulled from combat after 60-90 days at the front (in ideal situations) to re-quip and reinforce. The American Army and the Soviet Army both kept units in line, but offered individual soldiers and small units R&R behind the lines. Reinforcements were sent to each unit as individuals, not as squads or platoons, which turned out to be inefficient (the men they trained with and trusted were gone and the veterans, knowing how likely it was that the new guys would make a mistake, kept their distance until the new guys learned something, which meant many new guys died while learning what the veterans could have taught them behind the lines).
Similarly, these units may have been on the line, but they were not the same. The casualty rate for the 1st Infantry Division was over 200% in its less than year of combat.
Studies after the war concluded that a soldier reached the peak of his effectiveness under constant fire at about 35-45 days and slowly lost effectiveness after that (unless he was rested). The human mind cannot process daily violence and gradually PTSD or shellshock get almost all of us.
To combat this, the US instituted a year long combat rotation for US draftees in Korea and Vietnam. You were drafted for two year. One year you went overseas for combat, the other year was training for combat and administrative tasks before and after deployment (since we apparently understand the military only through entertainment, think of Platoon and the guys comparing their tours as "201 in" etc)
The Pentagon's current plan is to rotate its forces for 12 months (now 15 months) in Iraq and twelve months to re-equip forces and train replacement officers and enlisted men. They also, per my Marine Lt cousin, use that time to refine their tactics and ditch what did not work the second time. Because the invasion is so ad hoc, they do not get the same mission in the smae place as the first time (they go where they are needed), so my cousin spent a year in Haditha, when he returns his unit will not be returned to Haditha (where they had relationships with the locals), but, most likely, they will "surge" into Baghdad.
Edwards's plan to give soldiers a year back home enables our volunteer force to do things like stay married, raise children, and live the life we ask them to put in danger.
PS The book Band of Brothers is superior to the film (aren't they all?) and will show unlike other units, the PIR's were pulled off the line to train new guys and rest. That's one reason they always fought so well. They were sharp.
Stephen Ambrose's other book Citizen Soldiers contains an in-depth view of how the US reinforced its Army in World War 2. It's also emotional and moving as hell. A great read.
Posted by: timb at June 08, 2007 03:19 PM (vNmTV)
5
John Edwards’s voting record on military issues can be found at: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107&type=category&category=47&go.x=11&go.y=15
John Edwards’s history of speeches on the Iraq war can be found at: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech.php?keyword=iraq+war&daterange=&begin=&end=&phrase=&contain=&without=&type=search&can_id=21107&go2.x=0&go2.y=0#Results
John Edwards’s ratings from special interest groups on military issues can be found at: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=21107
Project Vote Smart produces the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), which essentially asks each candidate “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?” You can find John Edwards’s responses to the NPAT at: http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=21107
For more information on John Edwards’s position on military issues please visit: http://www.vote-smart.org or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.
Posted by: Project Vote Smart at June 08, 2007 04:36 PM (Z+KDc)
6
If the movie Deliverance wants a Do-Over, I heartily recommend an alleged male, in white boxers, named John Edwards. He would be stellar in his performance as the Great Ned Beatty! Squeal fer me BOY!
OKAY!...OKAY!! Shut the hell up, John!!! I'm through ridin!!!
Posted by: Jihadgene at June 08, 2007 05:41 PM (l8Hl5)
7
I wonder how much hair spray he went through when he wrote that out?
Posted by: LisaV (aka "Talismen - Lady Crusader against jihad") at June 08, 2007 08:34 PM (jaqG+)
8
I don't know of anyone who advocates wholesale, widespread torture, but for Edwards to intone that waterboarding
Please, Confed, enlighten us with your understanding of waterboarding. Have you actually studied why it's effective, and what it entails? Why the Inquisition employed it, as did the Japanese and Nazis in WWII? Would you be willing to let me subject you to it for more than 20 minutes? Even if I offered you $10K for staying firm the entire time (only you agree that I am in control the entire time...this is not a test, I decide when you've really had enough)?
Posted by: Random Guy at June 09, 2007 01:54 AM (K1Emm)
9
Have you actually studied why it's effective, and what it entails? Why the Inquisition employed it, as did the Japanese and Nazis in WWII?
They ALSO utilized asking questions. Ergo, asking questions must be evil.
Why is it effective? Because it makes people think they will die but will not kill them.
Would you be willing to let me subject you to it for more than 20 minutes?
I wouldn't be willing to be subjected to an interrogation of any sort for 20 minutes. Are you implying that because of that all interrogation techniques are evil?
-=Mike
Posted by: MikeSC at June 09, 2007 08:11 AM (LqIrc)
10
If waterboarding is safe and non-injurious enough for our own pilots taking the SERE training, I think its gotta be OK for terrorists.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 09, 2007 08:54 AM (Sr5ZD)
11
What can one say? A little boy with an overly expensive hair cut has always gotten what he wanted. Now he wants to be the POTUS. A boy in an adult's game. I'm afraid it will end badly for him in the primaries. Isn't that great?
Posted by: Fred Beloit at June 09, 2007 01:57 PM (Z7x7c)
12
John Edwards' Plan against Terrorism: A Rebuttal
Force Structure:
‘We must have enough troops to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence…’
John Edwards’s call for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq in the middle of an unfinished war with Islamic extremists undermines our deterrence by demonstrating once again that America is a paper tiger and that the American Congress and the American people don’t have the will to deploy troops anywhere in the world for very long in defense of our national interests. One significant ‘national interest’ is the right to live in freedom from fear of attack by Islamic supremacist terrorists who want to drive American influence from the Muslim world.
‘…decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations…’
John Edward shows how remarkably little he knows about military affairs. Guard and Reserve soldiers with years of civilian and military experience to draw from provide many of the unique skills required to embark on any modern military campaign. Transportation and Logistics, Engineers, Military Intelligence and Police, and Medical branches are all heavily dependant on Guard and Reserve soldiers.
Intelligence Strategy:
‘At the same time, we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law.’
John Edwards shows his stunning ignorance of the nature of the enemy we face. Terrorists do not now nor have they ever followed international law and the law of war, hence the name ‘terrorist’. Islamic supremacist terrorists in particular do not need international law as they receive all the authority and legitimacy for their actions from the Qur’an.
Meetings with Military Leadership:
‘…military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations,…’
John Edwards’s opposition to the deployment of an additional 30,000 soldiers to Baghdad and his support for Congressional attempts to tie war funding to troop withdrawal contradicts his stated plan and demonstrates that he supports the unconstitutional interference of Congress in ‘matters of tactics’ that are the sole domain of the Commander-in-Chief.
"Marshall Corps":
‘As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions.’
Civilian units of the Peace Corp variety cannot be deployed to the dangerous and unstable parts of the world where terrorists thrive without significant military logistical support and armed protection. Thin-skinned social workers will be particularly vulnerable to Chlorine Gas Truck Bombs and will require extensive force protection from the military to do their jobs.
Rebuild Equipment:
‘…our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use.’
War has a tendency to do that to equipment. Would John Edwards have argued against the invasion of Normandy during WWII because military equipment would be used at an alarming rate? Why even have a military if the primary mission is to preserve it in pristine condition for the ‘pass in review’ on the parade grounds of America’s stateside military bases?
Posted by: mick187tharct at June 09, 2007 03:46 PM (CWdZh)
13
I think the Marshall Corps could work, if it was well-administered. This would be a force of police, reconstruction specialists, and emergency response personnel. All of these people would receive training to prepare them for hostile, lawless landscapes like Iraq... or post-Katrina New Orleans. This unit would be a deployable, non-military force that could operate inside or outside of the United States. They would also cross-train with current contractors and military personnel who have reconstruction related roles.
I'd like to see him actually detail it further. If he neglects the security element, it would be a waste of time. Does he mean Marshall as in Marshall plan or as in US Marshals? The latter would be more useful.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at June 10, 2007 03:41 AM (ni8+6)
14
The idea that the German army pulled its units out of line every 60 days is ridiculous. Units were kept in line until they were burned out and then sent back to reform and absorb new recruits.
American units didn't do this and units sent new recruits to be absorbed in action, where they died quickly. The Leuftwaffe pilots bascically fought till they were killed or were no longer fit to fly.
The British army never had the luxury of withdrawing divisions from an active front unless they faced an opponent so enfeebled that no real opposition could be expected.
I also note the moonbat comment regarding waterboarding. I accept the challenge of waterboarding if you'll submit to my Al Queda methods of "torture." Since you believe they are the same as waterboarding I'd be happy to demonstrate the difference on said moonbat.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 10, 2007 04:57 PM (A2ZNt)
15
I also note the moonbat comment regarding waterboarding. I accept the challenge of waterboarding if you'll submit to my Al Queda methods of "torture." Since you believe they are the same as waterboarding I'd be happy to demonstrate the difference on said moonbat.
Nice dodge, but it doesn't work. I'm not disputing that Al Qaeda or other enemies of America use torture. I'm asking whether waterboarding practiced by anybody IS.
By my own research I conclude that it is one of the more perfect forms of torture, designed not to permanently impair the victim (after all, if you cut off 10 fingers you have no more to cut off...and what happens after you run out of limbs?), but to inflict maximum psychological damage with no lasting signature that the torture took place.
Please look into the psychological effects of it if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Random Guy at June 10, 2007 09:46 PM (K1Emm)
16
On a separate note, please feel free to refer to me as a moonbat if it makes you feel good. I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal, and as a student of WWII I think that claiming to be on the right side of the fight means, you know, actually BEING on the right side of the fight. If fighting the war on terror means that you give up principled American values like not engaging in torture, then I don't know what the hell it is that we're fighting for.
Posted by: Random Guy at June 10, 2007 10:15 PM (K1Emm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 07, 2007
Breaking Memo: Trapped in Fruitless Quagmire with Insurgents, President Considers Withdrawl
Oh, wait a minute. I might have read that too quickly.
It seems that the memo was from 1864, the President was Lincoln, and he told Meade to
attack-attack-ATTACK until Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was destroyed, even as "peace Democrats" (gee, this sounds familiar) advocated for surrender and withdrawal.
I wonder if there is some sort of lesson to be learned here....
nah.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:14 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And as Lincoln knew, if we didn't fight them over there, we'd have to fight them over....
...oh, yeah.
Never mind.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 07, 2007 08:01 PM (tk0b2)
2
If anyone has ever made a more ridiculous comparison of military situations as this one, I have never seen it.
Equating the US strategic position in 1864 with the situation in Iraq today is quite simply too silly for words. Please--you can do better than this.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at June 07, 2007 08:39 PM (/XSN6)
3
And the memo you link to says nothing about attacking! Lincoln is simply observing that if Meade can "complete his work" and destroy Lee's army, the "rebellion will be over." It says nothing about how to do so, and does not order him to "attack, attack, attack."
Do you do this on purpose, assuming that your readers will not click the link?
Or do you really believe that the memo you cite says this?
Your analytical thinking leaves a lot to be desired. No surprise from a "patriot" who worships the heritage of the only serious rebellion ever mounted against the nation I hold dear enough to have risked my life for.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at June 07, 2007 08:46 PM (/XSN6)
4
Here's a good comparison of wars. I just can't believe the NYT printed it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/opinion/07shawcross.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Posted by: jbiccum at June 07, 2007 08:57 PM (Rd4s4)
5
Maybe the memo is not a true parallel but there are some similarities between 1864 and 20xx. I put the 'xx' in there because we don't know when our '1864' will come.
The Union Big Three realized the key to winning was depriving the enemy of the will to fight. Today, our enemies are using similar tactics against us and using the media as their primary weapon. It's almost treasonous that the media is too stupid to see this.
Of course, this kind of stupidity in the media is not new. If you read Grant's and Sherman's memoirs, each complain about how the Union press would exaggerate every Confederate 'victory' (even if some battle wasn't one) and downplay any Union victory. The Confederates were victims, not enemies, so the northern press would say. The Confederacy counted on this hoping that the Union would just give up thinking that it's not worth the effort. Doesn't this sound familiar?
Thankfully, Lincoln listened to his generals.
Posted by: Brian at June 07, 2007 09:41 PM (x9rNJ)
6
Brian,
To argue this on a blog limits us, but I'll try to respond to your major points.
The big difference is the use of asymmetrical warfare. The Confederacy surrendered. The officers persuaded their men in Virginia and North Carolina that guerilla war was not a choice.
That makes this a very different ball game.
People here in the south are fond of quoting a Confederate soldier who, when asked by a Union officer why he fought said, "Because you are here."
I think it's of some benefit to consider that response in our current occupation.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 07, 2007 09:56 PM (tk0b2)
7
Here's the striking thing about Lincoln's note: he has some idea in his head about how the war could be brought to an end. As he writes, "If Gen. Meade can complete his work so gloriously prosecuted thus far, by the litteral (sic) or substantial destruction of Lee’s army, the rebellion will be over."
If I heard something so forthright from our own Commander-in-Chief, I think I would have a heart attack and die from the surprise. No such luck, though: all we get is vague metaphors about standing up and standing down, or, better still, the President's vision that America's involvement in Iraq will be based on the Korean model, which will have us in Baghdad for over fifty more years.
Second of all, Lincoln was right: with Lee's surrender, the war effectively came to an end. There were still Rebel troops in the field, but the Confederacy, as a military force, ground to a halt at Appomattox Courthouse. In contrast, when was the last time we heard Bush display the same kind of solid knowledge of the course of the war? Not recently, and that's putting it charitably.
It would be best not to compare Mr. Bush with Mr. Lincoln, explicitly or implicitly. Lincoln was, conceivably, the greatest American of the nineteenth century. As a specimen of what our country can turn out, Bush isn't fit to carry Lincoln's stovepipe hat.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 07, 2007 11:59 PM (eb1w3)
8
"all we get is vague metaphors about standing up and standing down, or, better still, the President's vision that America's involvement in Iraq will be based on the Korean model, which will have us in Baghdad for over fifty more years."
That's simply because they have no idea how to finish this war. Every strategic option available leads to a loss;
1) Ongoing "stay the course" policy : Further alienation of all groups except Kurds. Continued and steady attacks on US forces and civilians. Weak central government. Effective failed state providing terrorist breeding ground.
2) Harsh measures (A-la Fallujha) same problems, but faster.
3) Total withdrawl. Total loss of influence for the US, probably widespread bloodshed.
4) Country becomes peaceful. Parliament demands US troop withdrawl. Effective Iranian Ally.
5) Country breaks up. Turks at war with Kurdistan, Sunnis at war with Shia. Shia in bed with Iran in the South.
There just isn't a genuinely acceptable outcome from the US perspective. Either you lose Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence, or you get a constant insurgency and continue to pour money into a black hole for all time.
Hard to be specific about your victory in such a circumstance.
That's why there is a grand difference between the US civil war and this one. In the US civil war there was an acceptable conclusion available.
Posted by: Rafar at June 08, 2007 03:46 AM (kkgmI)
9
David,
True; and that's our biggest problem. The enemy stays low because they cannot beat us face to face, force to force. They stay low and wait for the storm to pass then emerge and fight the only way they know how. If we can figure out how to beat that strategy, that would solve a lot of problems.
Posted by: Brian at June 08, 2007 05:45 AM (x9rNJ)
10
Krykee.
Some folks don't like your post none too much.
Obviously, these are two different wars w/ only a few parallels, but the main lesson from both wars, and the presidents involved is PRESS ON. Never give up. Never surrender. I believe this attitude also served churchill very well (yes, yes. a war with few parallels to this one).
While I believe that Mr. Lincoln did not have the moral or legal authority to wage that war, I admire his tenacity and fortitude in the face of CONSTANT scorn, incompetence and defeatism. Even Mr. Lincoln's own Gen. McClellan called him "the original gorilla; incompetent as ever" and "a facille fellow in desperate need of an intellect."
And, as you pointed out, both presidents had/have petulent and seditious factions of the media (and populous) to contend with.
PRESS ON. Never give up. Never surrender.
There is nothing new under the sun.
But, how long before the political tools in the msm question the ~timing of this memo??
HA!
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at June 08, 2007 09:28 AM (Cy7OH)
11
"PRESS ON. Never give up. Never surrender."
almost almost right
we have to take out the stops and git er done
if we cant do that may as well bring our boys home
its better to leave in disgrace than to leave our boys there with one hand tied
Posted by: Karl at June 08, 2007 10:05 AM (5zEhw)
12
"we have to take out the stops and git er done"
I'm curious. What sort of steps would you like to see in Iraq?
Posted by: Rafar at June 08, 2007 01:50 PM (EX6eK)
13
I think it is very inaccurate to say that the Civil War ended because Lee surrendered. In fact, what brought victory in the Civil War is exactly what is missing from the war in Iraq: fighting with the ferocity required in war. It may leave a bad taste in the mouth, but the fact of the matter is that the South was defeated because Sherman burnt it to the ground and because Grant attacked with all the resources available to him by the Northern industrial powerhouse, the Germans were defeated because the Allies bombed them into oblivion. The single deadliest mistake the west has made in the Middle East is to fight small scale conflicts (and through the lens of history, even Iraq is small-scale) without striving for absolute victory (think of Israel and the Arabs: innumerable cease-fires = innumerable casualties). Far from advocating the carpet bombing of civilians, I think it is quite clear that if the violent insurgents are to be beaten, they must be massacred on the battlefield and pursued with unyielding rage. This is war. People kill eachother, die and suffer and it is only justifiable if, in the end, lasting peace is achieved. The terrorists must be "cured" of their desire for war, in the same way the South was cured (the South will NEVER rise again).
Sherman said it first, to attempt to make war clean and easy will only result in embarassment and defeat. Lincoln did not make that mistake, Churchill did not make that mistake, Bush IS making that mistake.
Posted by: K-Det at June 08, 2007 02:39 PM (aaP7C)
14
"While I believe that Mr. Lincoln did not have the moral or legal authority to wage that war, I admire his tenacity and fortitude in the face of CONSTANT scorn, incompetence and defeatism."
What a silly statement? Could you point out anywhere in the Constitution where it says states are allowed to secede? Strangely, it does mention rebellions and how to quash those....so, legally, the United States Congress authorized an Army and gave the President permission to go to war. Sounds like it was legal to me.
Moral authority? Preserving the Union not good enough for you, eh? How about the ending slavery? Not persuasive? Well, if the future of your country is not that important and the enslavement of millions, then, locomative, I'm afraid you don't understand the term "moral."
I cannot believe there are still Southern apologists 150 years after the war. This is a settled question....seriously, it makes the objective reader question your judgment, and I think that's unfortunate.
Posted by: timb at June 08, 2007 03:28 PM (vNmTV)
15
K-Det:
Notice that I pointed out that Confederate armies were still in the field, and that I said that "the Confederacy, as a military force, ground to a halt at Appomattox Courthouse." While Lee's surrender didn't automatically mean that the entire Confederacy was surrendering in a USS Missouri-like fell swoop, Lee's army was a major target near the end of the war, and it was clear to the Union (as evidenced by Lincoln's letter) that a surrender by Lee would take the wind out of the South's sails.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at June 08, 2007 07:13 PM (T5ngB)
16
The South did engage in some guerilla activities during the war (ie: Quantrill's raiders) but after
the war, the likes of General Nathan Bedford Forrest organized the KKK (a militia/death squad)
or sorts; as was the Knights of Carnelia. They focused mainly on the civilian population; and their efforts wore down the American's patients for continuing the occupation. A reality, hat came
in handy in 1876; when they terrorized enough civilians; to make the election close enough to
settle in the Compromise of 1877; which was the
beginning of the Jim Crow era under the Bourbon
reformers.
Posted by: narciso at June 09, 2007 12:53 AM (A5s0y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fred! Grabs Lead in NC Primary Poll
Via WRAL:
According to a recent survey, Fred Thompson, who has not yet announced his presidential candidacy, has jumped into the lead in the North Carolina Republican primary.
The survey, released by Public Policy Polling, shows 37 percent of likely Republican primary voters would vote for the former senator from Tennessee -- a 12 percent increase from May.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani dropped to second place with 25 percent of likely Republican voters. Former Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney both garnered 14 percent.
Nine percent of Republican voters said they supported a candidate other than Thompson, Giuliani, McCain and Romney and 1 percent said they were undecided.
Not a bad showing at all, especially from someone who has yet to officially declare.
I must also confess that I'm a bit surprised at the strength of Fred!'s showing, leaping to a twelve-point lead over second-place Rudy Giuliani at a time that I didn't think he yet had made significant media penetration outside of the political junkies in the blogosphere.
In the same poll, John Edwards (30-percent) was leading the Democratic herd ahead of Hillary Clinton (26-percent) and Barack Obama (22-percent), suggesting that the recreational use of crystal meth is far more widespread in North Carolina than was previously believed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:10 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Fred will play amazingly well in the South.
Posted by: iamnot at June 07, 2007 02:29 PM (onj4J)
2
Fred Rocks I just went to imwithfred.com and donated for the first time in my life for a candidate.
I also bought everybody in my family a Fred T-shirt at tshirtpoll.com
Posted by: Greg at June 07, 2007 02:43 PM (lJa1y)
3
Thompson/Huckabee is my pick
Posted by: Rich at June 07, 2007 02:50 PM (EblDJ)
4
I'm with Fred! I just added a link to your post to my 2007.06.07 "Forty Four!" Roundup. (I stopped doing daily Fred! roundups and started doing daily Forty Four! roundups after Forty Four's visit with Sean Hannity Tuesday night.)
Posted by: Bill Faith at June 07, 2007 03:08 PM (n7SaI)
5
Fred Thompson is the man. Every conservative should be voting for him...let alone every person in America.
Posted by: Matt at June 07, 2007 03:10 PM (ezZoF)
6
I'm from North Carolina, lived here most my 55 yrs. I'm voteing for Fred Thompson !! Damn the others.
Posted by: Dennis Little at June 07, 2007 03:30 PM (9uGjJ)
7
What no Ron Paul? (j/k)
ImwithFred also
(but not in NC)
Posted by: Lord Nazh at June 07, 2007 04:47 PM (ViYz5)
8
As a FREDeralist I'm excited to hear this! I just can't wait for Fred's official announcement in July so this virtually unseen tsunami of support will finally be acknowledged as something more than a "flash in the pan".
RUN FRED! RUN!
Posted by: Da Coyote at June 07, 2007 05:11 PM (Sb8LT)
9
Well in the home of Johnny Edwrads ( I am truely ashamed of that), its good to see. Go Fred. I like Rudy, Mitt, and Sam too! Good crop for the right. Losers on the left eh?
Posted by: NC Boy at June 07, 2007 06:06 PM (gBi1O)
10
Given the man we have in the White House, can we hold the election today?
Because I promise to vote for Fred if we can just end this now.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 07, 2007 08:38 PM (tk0b2)
11
Thompson-Hunter!
NC must be populated with trial lawyers if they like Edwards that much.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 10, 2007 04:59 PM (A2ZNt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cheap Shot
Infuriated at Paris Hilton's early release from jail, Sean Mullen of the Moderate Voice uses the opportunity to take a swing at Fred! as well:
There are rumors that the nascient Fred Thompson presidential campaign is interested in bringing her [Hilton] on as a spokesmodel.
I'm not sure where Mullen is intending to go with this.
Is he saying that a tipsy tart like Paris Hilton is the kind of person Thompson associates himself with, and if so, isn't that yet another
Scarborough-esque cheap shot at Jeri Thompson, wife of the undeclared Republican candidate?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:01 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is the dems latest technique in the campaign season. They take a dump on the favorite candidate of the hour (Fred does happen to be my guy, in the interest of full disclosure).
Should we all now start talking about the tarts that the Kennedy clan has raped and used over the past 3 or 4 decades? If they want to play this game, in this manner, they'd better be prepared for the quid pro quo....because people in glass houses....
Posted by: LisaV (aka "Talismen - Lady Crusader against jihad) at June 07, 2007 12:22 PM (hosSA)
2
They have a lot of nerve making these kind of accustions considering Bill Clintons escapades.
Posted by: csasarge at June 07, 2007 01:35 PM (2sjvI)
3
This raises a question that I have been pondering. If there is a segment of society that is called upon to pay far more taxes than the average individual, shouldn't they expect better treatment? I know that in my career I have had to pay upwards of 60% of my income in tax and am held to a far higher standard in my profession than the average individual. It would seem only fair that I have priveledge over others who don't meet these excessive social obligations.
This is the message that we are getting from elites who are both Democrat and Republican. And no one can argue that our society is becoming fragmented along social lines that are establishing a pecking order similar to the type in Europe from medevil times. So instead of cowering under a false cover of equality, those of us who are expected to do more should step up and demand different considerations. Otherwise, lets make social obligations more uniform.
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at June 07, 2007 02:04 PM (G5i3t)
4
David, look into incorporating, even if only as a sub-S. It did it quite a while ago and the financial advantages were/are significant.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 07, 2007 04:03 PM (Sr5ZD)
5
I did even better than that. I retired and went to work for the state. Now I suck up your tax dollars.
Posted by: David Caskey at June 07, 2007 09:02 PM (Hh6I7)
6
Scarborough takes cheap shots at Thompson's wife because the closest he could come to a woman that cute is at a magazine stand.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at June 07, 2007 10:04 PM (WdHqZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is a Summer Proxy War Brewing To Protect Iranian Nukes?
And so the build-up begins:
Israeli intelligence officials have been warning for weeks that Syria is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-tank weapons, antiaircraft rockets, and other missiles, and bolstering its presence along the Israeli border.
Mohammad al Habash, a Syrian parliament member, meanwhile, told the Al Jazeera satellite channel this week that his country was actively preparing for war with Israel, which he said he expected to break out this summer.
I'd suggest taking that bit of news in
this context:
A senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government suggested that his country is running out of patience with a US-backed diplomatic overture to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions, The Associated Press (AP) reported.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
already threatened the U.N. Security Council after threatening
the destruction of Israel in the near future just days ago.
We also know that in the wake of last summer's battle in Lebanon that Syria and Iran
moved rapidly to rearm the stockpiles of their Hezbollah proxies with over 20,000 short-range missiles and a significant quantity of small arms and ammunition.
According to
Defense Update, Hezbollah's deputy secretary Sheikh Naim Kassem intoned that the terror group was preparing for another "adventure" with Israel this summer, and has been receiving anti-aircraft missiles and training directly from Islamic Revolutionary Guards at Iran's Imam Ali base in Tehran.
It seems that we are witnessing is a deliberate and calculated build-up of forces by Syria and Hezbollah for a probable summer campaign against Israel, an attempt likely orchestrated by Iran.
What would be the goal of such a campaign?
Any Israeli response to a summer war would necessarily involve the use of the IDF's strike fighters to hit enemy armor, troop concentrations, or rocket firing areas that are beyond the range of Israeli artillery.
With the recent build-up in training and equipment for both Hezbollah and Syrian anti-aircraft units, it seems possible that the goal of a summer war would be to draw Israel aircraft into an engagement so that they could be ambushed and shot down.
If Syrian and Hezbollah forces could draw Israel aircraft into range, volleys of anti-aircraft missiles could potentially bring down some of Israel's premier strike aircraft and pilots, including the long-range strike fighters that have been training for a possible Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
If Israel loses a significant number of pilots and aircraft (Israel only has 25 F-15I "Ra'am" fighters, thought to be their preferred method of delivering "bunkerbuster" bombs against hardened Iranian facilities), then the probability of success of any Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities decreases.
The coming summer war may be designed for the sole purpose of buying the Iranian program the time it needs to come to fruition and produce a nuclear warhead.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:13 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Perhaps they could instead confound their foes by reusing, to an extent, the Six Day War game plan. Attack Iran with the long-range strike force (F-15I, F-16I, tankers), fending off the Syrians, if they choose to attack at a moment of perceived Israeli weakness, using the older F-15s and F-16s while attacking Hezbollah with the remaining A-4 and F-4 to keep them off-balance until the strike force has hopefully completed its task.
Posted by: Surly at June 07, 2007 11:31 AM (Q5WxB)
2
We need to get out of Israel's way and let them do what it takes to protect themselves...whatever that might be.
"Let slip the dogs of war"....
Posted by: LisaV (aka "Talismen - Lady Crusader against jihad) at June 07, 2007 12:26 PM (hosSA)
3
It seems that we are witnessing is a deliberate and calculated build-up of forces by Syria and Hezbollah for a probable summer campaign against Israel, an attempt likely orchestrated by Iran.
"Likely"...on what do you base this? The ConfedYank's own intelligence? I suspect you use the Dick Cheney filter of intel analysis.
Posted by: Random Guy at June 08, 2007 12:42 AM (K1Emm)
4
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I've begun to think that for radical Islamic politicians, proposing to destroy Israel is kind of like Republicans proposing to abolish abortion (or Democrats proposing Universal Healthcare). Sure these propositions get their supporters all riled up, but nobody ever really does anything. It's just political theater. Again, I'm probably just being cynical and threats on the international level should always be taken seriously.
Posted by: B.E.A.T. at June 08, 2007 02:45 AM (p+Ao3)
5
"Likely"...on what do you base this? The ConfedYank's own intelligence?
Ramdom, did you actually, you know, read the post?
Both Hezbollah's deputy secretary Sheikh Naim Kassem and Syria's Mohammad al Habash indicated they are preparing for a summer campign against Israel, and both have been stockpiling and spending hundreds of million of dollars in weaponry. Iran has continually promised ot erradicate Israel, and soon.
I based my post on their words and actions, as carried by media outlets they chose to spoke with.
Now it very well may be that the conclusion I'm drawing are incorrect, but as no one can predict the future, what we have to work with as our best estimates based upon what people are doing, and what they say they are preparing to do.
The scenario I've drawn out seems quite logical to my way of thinking, but if you would like to lay out a contrary argument based upon what they say they are preparing for and what they are stockpiling for with their particular mix of weapons and projected order of battle, by all means, please provide an alternative scenario.
All of us are waiting with bated breath.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 08, 2007 07:11 AM (9y6qg)
6
*chirp*
*chirp* *chirp*
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 08, 2007 02:39 PM (Sr5ZD)
7
The scenario I've drawn out seems quite logical to my way of thinking
Again, no evidence of some grand trans-national Islamic conspiracy, instead -- to your "way of thinking" is enough evidence that Iran has directly called Hamas and directed...etc. I'm not arguing that there isn't a connection between these parties, what I'm arguing is whether any of this stuff is as *coordinated* as your post seems to imply. And you have to admit that you don't have s**t for evidence for that --everything you implied is just to your "way of thinking". Hence the Cheney analogy.
Purple Avenger, the crickets are between your ears.
Posted by: Random Guy at June 09, 2007 01:10 AM (K1Emm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 150 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.6395 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6193 seconds, 204 records returned.
Page size 203 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.