Military and Strategy
One of the reasons why the US is feared is because of her power to culturally assimilate people from all over the globe.
Impatient fans of popular American television shows from 24 to Desperate Housewives are increasingly turning to illegal internet downloads to watch programmes hours after they have been broadcast in the US.
Britain is the worst offender in this explosion of online television piracy that has seen illegal downloads of some programmes increase by more than 150 per cent in the past year, research shows. 24, the hit thriller starring Kiefer Sutherland, is the most popular pirate television programme worldwide. In the past 12 months, illegal downloads of the show have risen from 35,000 per episode for the third series to 95,000 for the fourth.
Downloads of Desperate Housewives rose from 40,000 for the first episode to more than 60,000 for the most recent, although this is a tiny fraction of the four million viewers who regularly tune in. About 18 per cent of online television piracy is in Britain, closely followed by Australia - countries with a growing demand for early access to American television shows.
Conservatives in those other countries, fear change and also fear a challenge to their power, therefore they tend to blame the US for giving their citizens a richer, more lively culture than any they can find in their home countries.
That is the true power of the United States, it is a power that works in generational terms instead of days and months. The US military, although supreme among the Earth, is a quick reaction force to apply brute strength to crack open doors and obstacles. Our cultural assimilation prowess, however, is as oxygen, able to corrode things slowly over time. Like oxygen, we are everywhere, and just as much as you would hate oxygen for its corrosion, you still need it. We destroy the metals that are incomplete and weak, leaving only the strong to inherit the earth.
If the "meek inherited" the earth, then certainly the slow crawl of assimilation would have fitted the description of "meek" in those days. Easily termed weak, when in fact it can be stronger than instantaneous explosions.
Nations such as Japan are integrating many English words and phrases into their popular culture, symbolized through the Japanese phenomenon known as Anime. English is in fact, the second language of Japan. All anyone has to do to see the influence of American culture on Japan, is to look at the number 1 ranked Anime TV series in Japan, Naruto.
A perspective comprimised of equal parts bias and intelligence
New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans, that the richness and difficulty of life here give our intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W. Bush).
As you can see, not something an everyday ignorant or stupid liberal could say out of hand.
And finally, most liberals and New Yorkers suspect that we may be too smart for our own good. It is a form of self-flattery as self-criticism. During these past few years, I have heard it said again and again that liberals' ineffectiveness derives from their inability to see the world in the simple blacks and whites of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Bushes. (Why else, the argument goes, did John Kerry lose?)
A good psychological inference, that doesn't go far enough. This is the same for Senators and Congressional representatives, when they are talking to administration officials or military personnel. After all, they were exhalted enough to be elected, what gives the military or the cabinet right to criticize our Way?
It is a sort of doublethink. In which they recognize how their traits hamstring them, but they come up with ways of looking at the traits that hamstring them as inherently superior. Therefore a Senator feels they are right about Rumsfield lieing about numbers, when Rumsfield knows more and is actually up to date on current reports of numbers of Iraqi policemen in service.
But now our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Even in recognizing the sort of doublethink that goes on in the liberal circles that the author is part of, he cannot help but portray the act as noble, but tragic.
Until the Iraqi vote: surprisingly smooth and inarguably inspiring and, in some local camps, unexpectedly unsettling. Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team.
I'm not sure how hating the idea of a victory presided over by Bush, can mean anything other than to subconsciously or consciously wishing for the terroists to win.
If you don't want the terroists to win, did he then mean that the liberals were hoping the terroists would show an illusion of winning and thereby allowing the Democrats to ascend through this "illusion" perpetrated upon the American voters? Or is the case even simpler, that the prospect of a Democratic victory at the polls meant sacrificing Iraq in the short term, as well as pulling the troops out in the long term.
Either scenario, is not as palatable as the author made it out to be. The author may not have wished for an insurgent victory since he was a fence before January, but he is incorrect to say that a lunatic "fringe" is responsible only for such actual wishes. In point of fact, many Democrats, if not the majority, wished it and felt good about it.
Like radical chic, a related New York specialty, liberal guilt once meant feeling discomfort over ones good fortune in an unjust world. As this last U.S. election cycle began, however, a new subspecies of liberal guilt aroseover the pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration. But with Bush reelected, any shred of tacit moral rationale is gone. In other words, feel the guilt, and let it be a pang that leads to moral clarity.
And if the majority of Democrats keep up with this nonexistent "tacit moral rationale", then that means they never had such rationales in the first place. Moral or not.
I dont mean to suggest, in the right-wing, proto-fascist rhetorical fashion, that every good American is obliged to support all American wars.
Every American must do everything in their power to help win wars America is in, to be worthy of their duty to their country. The fake liberals did not meet such standards, they were far too eager to use political expediency to further political agendas than using their powers to present a so called united front. Which only required that they shut the hell up and not use the bad news out of Iraq for political purposes. They could criticize, and should as well, all they want, but not for political power.
Right wing, proto-fascist, is defined by liberals as,
"Last week, you found yourselves secretly . . . heartenedand appalledby the stories of the Marine general who said it was a hell of a hoot [and] fun to shoot some people in Afghanistan, and about the possible Islamist drift of the Shiites who will now govern Iraq. When military officers show themselves to be callous warmongers, and neocon military adventurism looks untenable, certain comfortable assumptions are reaffirmed."
Anything that supports the morale of the troops, helps us fight and win wars, and presents a strong public image to our enemies, is defined by fake liberals as right wing and proto-fascist.
Right wing proto-fascists like I and other dutiful Americans, are heartened by the existence of such Marine leaders and citizens, and appalled by the treatment of such an inspiration.
There may be only one important sense, finally, in which the American experience of Vietnam applies to this war: What is the number and rate of U.S. casualties we can bear, and will the new Iraqi government be able to take care of itself before we reach that unbearable number?
Did I hear this right, finally? Come on. The analogy to Vietnam was evident in how the media tried to portray all our victories as defeats, and all our defeats as failed victories.
The big victories like Fallujah are quickly put under wraps, to give air time for the "good" news. And Cronkite's successor follows in the old man's footsteps by making things up again and "misleading" the American people.
The number of casualties we are able to bear is 2, 4, or 6 times the number that of Vietnam. Solely because of two things. The Americans no longer think the MSM is trustworthy and the military is made up out of all volunteers.
"FInally" is not the correct word. Eventually the American experience in Iraq will completely overshadow the experience of Vietnam.
In Iraq, American patience and stubbornness will not extend nearly that far.Of course, it will extend farther.
But we will not pay any price or bear any burden, as JFK rashly promised.The author may not be willing to, since he and his associates are no longer "true liberals". That title belongs to the right now, where we are willing to pay any price, bear any burden.
One day during the U.S. election campaign, President Bush accidentally uttered a plain truth about the war on terror. I dont think you can win it, he said, which immediately provoked attacks from the Democrats. A month later, John Kerry inadvertently told the same truth''We have to get back to the place . . . where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but theyre a nuisance''whereupon Bush pounced, saying he couldn't disagree more. Later the same month, the president slipped and retold the same truth Whether or not we can be ever fully safe . . . is up in the airand Kerry, inevitably, replied: 'You make me president [and] it's not going to be up in the air.'
What this person forgot to mention was that Bush meant we can't win it like any old regular war. And he is right, this is an asymetrical war and you cannot win it with just tanks and carriers.
The President never did in fact slip and "retell" the same truth. President Bush does not believe terrorism was ever a nuissance nor does he believe our safety ever was guaranteed, ever. President Bush believes that "fully safe" is an unachievable goal, but he is smart enough not to say that. He will try, but fully safe is a contradiction if you want "freedom" as well.
It was that kind of dishonest, automatic attack and counterattack that made me relieved, on November 3, when I was once again free to read and watch the news from Iraq without considering whether it was good or bad for Kerrys chances.
Here, you see the fake liberal bias. The kind of cynical attitude one has towards the world, and American idealism. Rather than putting the effort to look beyond the surface, he simply brushes it off with the excuse that this is simply another piece of political hackery.
Bush could have attacked Fallujah and ended the election on the basis that he doesn't think Kerry would do it if he won. That, is far more effective an "attack", if Bush was thinking of attacking his opponent for political points. But the fact was, Bush wasn't, he was thinking of the best interests of the American people. That is why he held off the Fallujah offensive until AFTER the vote came in. He held off of the Veterans death benefits until AFTER the elections.
These are not the actions of an automatic, dishonest, person. And it is only poisonous fake liberal biases that can prevent someone from seeing it.
98% of google employees give to Democrats rather than Republicans
The question I have is whether or not Google is the internet future version of Dan Rather and ABC News.
A thread about France's implosion
You make some interesting points many of which I agree with but I do have a quibble or two and a, humble, observation.
First the quibbles:
You take a much more benign view of Islam and of the North African influx than either most Frenchmen that I know or personal observation would allow me to accept. The suburban chaos around Paris is an exemplar. Enclaves of unassimilated (whether they speak French or not) represent the majority of the non-native French population. These places are dangerous to a degree not seen in the past and represent a rock upon which secular France may founder. If nothing else they represent a great potential problem as breeding grounds for radicalism. Islam in whatever form represents a real route to the end of France as we know it and not to the good.
Large numbers of unemployed young men who see no connection with the overarching society are a real problem. The French government is hiding from this problem.
You may love de Gaulle. I know many of the French do. Hardly anyone else who has read any history does. To us, he was the epitome of the self-centered, inferiority complex based French of the post war period.
In about 200 years France has gone from Voltaire to what? Name a scientist or an author, a soldier or a philanthropist who has much name recognition outside of France. Name a Noble winner or a philosopher. Name someone who is neither banal nor dead.
Compare what was to what is and you get a sad tale.
There are no universals but, overall, since WWI, French history has been a gradual, pitiful downward progression of self-doubt and decline.
The observation:
Unlike the Anglophones, radical change in France has been more revolutionary than evolutionary -- the sanguinary events leading to and as a result of the expulsion of the Bourbons being an example of this behavior. Even in day-to-day politics the wide swings of the French electorate illustrate the national preference for dramatic change.
It occurs to me that, self preservation being a basic human instinct, the political class has isolated itself from the French res publica in order to avoid such mood swings. Thus, perhaps, the only choice for the French is a return to Dr. Guillotines solution? How else does one rid oneself of an aristocracy efficiently and in short order? And so permanently.
The question, of course, is the starting point.
My take on this is similar to this article about French mentality.
As I referenced in my post about WWIV, I predicted that Europe would be the location for WWV or just a continuation of the current War on Terror.
The salient points are simply that France has problems, and many other European countries share it. The lack of assimilation is worrisom, since if the US clears out the terroists in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will simply migrate to other countries. And the prime country to migrate to is France. Assimilate France and the Netherlands, and you have a country full of nuclear weapons to use as a base.
Eurabia is an interesting concept. Given the secular relative ethics of Europe, a strong religious fanaticism like Islamicfascism has the power to convert many young Europeans. And if that occurs, we will need to finish the Middle East theater quickly. Because once the Arabs control enough of Europe to matter, the Middle East will no longer matter.
Fortunately, France still has a long ways to go, and so long as we are killing the best the terroists have to offer in Iraq, it delays the Islamicfascists plans to assimilate European countries. The French speak of OIF as being detrimental to their national interest, and they are right in one sense but wrong in the other. France needs the money for arms sales and that is why it can't lose Iraq and the dictator, but it is not in France's interests to help terrorism. It is in France's interests to help terrorism if their national interest lays with terrorism. Which is why many Frenchmen believe that France is justified in blocking the US while at the same time saying we are friends working for a common goal. Very delusional and doublethink like.
If we can win in the ME theater in the next decade, it will give us enough time to take care of the Netherlands, Spain, and France. If we delay for too long, Iran will be the least of our problems. Then there's Russia and China.
Original strategy link
February 5, 2005: The U.S. Navy and Air Force are considering some fundamental changes in how they fill the ranks, and use their personnel. The plan is to raise the skill and educational levels for everyone, so that fewer people will be required to run larger quantities of higher tech equipment. Both services are downsizing, and will keep that up for several years. At the same time, the two services are attracting more high quality recruits than they can accept. This sort of situation leads to a raising of standards, and redefining of jobs. The navy is shrinking the size of ship crews, and adding more automated gear to the ships. The air force is replacing more people with machines and computers, and needs more capable airmen to deal with this. Both the navy and the air force are doing what civilian firms have been doing for over a decade. But since September 11, 2001, theres been a jump in enlistments, and its continuing. More people are trying to stay in uniform, which has led to a unique program where some of these experienced sailors and airmen have been offered the option of either joining the army, or leaving the armed forces. Even the army is making its recruiting numbers, despite (or, in some cases, because of) the risk of getting killed. Theres a war on, but the military would have been undergoing a wrenching revolution with, or without, 911. It's a revolution that is being overshadowed by the war on terror.
More like a change that has been jumpstarted and accelerated by the War on Terror.
February 2, 2005: The U.S. Navy is changing the way it evaluates sailors for promotion. Currently, a lot of weight is given to seniority (how long the sailor has been in the navy, and their current job or rank) and test results. The new system gives much more weight to how effective the sailor is at doing their job. Such an approach has been used for senior officers with much success. A pilot program for sailors was also a success. One reason for the change was sailor dissatisfaction with the current system. While the navy is undergoing a downsizing at the moment, it found that those sailors, in key skill areas, it was trying to hang on to, were put off by the old system. So putting a lot more weight on actual job performance made a lot of sense. Keeping the best sailors is more difficult than just keeping any sailors.
Promotions on merit... another reason to cheer the Iraq War.
January 13, 2005: Readiness is one of those military terms that is supposed to mean how prepared a unit is for combat. In peacetime, the standards tend to drift from reality. With no real combat to really test readiness, what passes for readiness is often more illusion than reality. Comes a war, and what really constitutes readiness becomes obvious.
The U.S. Army had actually come up with a peacetime method of keeping readiness real. This was done with the training centers that allowed very realistic testing using weapons equipped with lasers, and laser detectors, to accurately measure the effects of firepower. This made the same old wargames a lot more realistic. As was discovered during the 1991 Gulf War, this made American ground combat units as effective as battle hardened ones. But the non-combat units found that they still had to adjust their concept of readiness.
Came the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, and combat support units again found that peacetime and combat readiness had drifted apart. This was particularly the case with logistics (getting supplies where they were needed) and maintenance (fixing stuff that broke down in combat). You dont hear much about changes in maintenance and logistics, but they have been many and frequent in the last three years. Perhaps more importantly, the readiness of the different services to operate together ( jointness ) has also gotten a wake-up call. Lack of readiness for jointness is an old problem. Everyone agrees it is needed in wartime, but the services drift apart in peacetime. This time, joint training and readiness is being institutionalized as a peacetime need. No one is sure that the services will continue training together, as much as they need, when peace returns. But at least everyone is saying that is important and that they will stay the course in the future. Time will tell.
Reason two to cheer the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Combat readiness is so hard to get and so easy to fake in peace time.
But the air force and navy are now eager to find new ways to get involved. The current situation also brings home the ancient truth that warfare is ultimately a fight on the ground. For decades the air force and navy have been pushing scenarios portraying the air force or navy (depending on who paid for the study) doing it all themselves. These two services still hold dear these dream situations, but right now, reality is making them look bad.
Wars should be fought on the ground, otherwise what is the damn point?
I certainly wouldn't want us to make war into a "game" of air duels and ship battles. Leave that to a future space navy to dish out.
The air force has found themselves more popular with the ground troops due to the new JDAM (satellite guided, or GPS) bombs. But this has reduced the air force to the role of cargo aircraft, flying safely out of gunfire range and dropping smart bombs on the command of some grunt below. The air force is also more in demand because of the increased capability of UAVs. But traditionally, most air force intelligence gathering was to provide targets for their bombers, rather than just sticking cameras over the battlefield for the army guys down below. To add insult to injury, the army is buying its own UAVs, which now compete with the air force UAVs.
Adding insult to "injury" hehe.
War Plan Black Then: A Naval war against Germany in case the French were knocked out of World War I with the Germans trying to take over the French Colonies in the Caribbean. Now: A plan to evacuate US troops and dependents from Germany in the face of rising European Union hostility against the US.
They're smarter than I thought if they have that plan. Only thing to do now is to make Bush activate it.
War Plan Crimson: Then: War with Canada in conjunction with War Plan Red Now: Altercation of fishing or water rights, lumbar trade, agricultural trade, difference in security/immigration policy.
"Altercations"? "Fishing"?
WTF!?
Talk about a country with no war spirit. The phrase, "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honors" have no meaning to the dudes in charge of Canadian military.
A country that doesn't pose enough of a threat to even defend itself, now that is a country one must be suspicious of. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
War Plan Gold Then: War with France. Now: Why bother? Wargames: None Books: None
.... fucking hilarious.
December 2, 2004: While the Iraqi army has had a hard time getting organized as a professional and effective fighting force, the same is not the case with the new Afghan army. Although the Afghans have only has some 15,000 troops now, they are well trained, well led, and effective in combat. In another five years, the Afghan army will reach its full strength of 70,000.
The Afghans have some of the same problems as the Iraqis, namely tribalism and a weak sense of nationalism. With four major ethnic groups (Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara), and dozens of powerful tribal organizations, its been difficult to get Afghan recruits who are willing to serve in the national interest. Ethnic and tribal loyalties are always stronger. But European colonizers proved in the 19th century that, with good training and good NCOs and officers, you can produce combat units from tribal warriors that can match Western ones in effectiveness. The key problem is getting effective NCOs. Its the sergeants that supervise the troops, and keep order in the barracks. Professional NCOs have been the secret to success in Western armies. However, the NCOs must be slowly developed, by selecting recruits who have leadership and management skills, and training them, on the job, over several years. It takes 3-5 years to get a suitable recruit to the point where he can handle the job of the lowest level sergeant (in charge of a squad of 10-12 troops.) Another 3-5 years gets you an NCO that can handle a platoon (which is usually led by a lieutenant, who depends on the platoon sergeant a lot.) Another five years gets you a company 1st sergeant. This NCO assists the officer commanding the company, and supervises the other twenty or so NCOs in the company.
Of course, Western nations have, in major wars, had to develop NCOs a lot more quickly. This was the case in the two World Wars, and as recently as the Vietnam war. When you are conscripting a lot of troops and creating many new units, the number of experienced soldiers is spread pretty thin. So you get shake and bake NCOs. These are young men (and some women) who have the leadership and management skills who are first selected (using tests and their performance in training), and then given some training on what NCOs do and how they do it. During World War II, there were many platoon and 1st sergeants in their 20s who did quite well, after on 2-3 years in service.
In Afghanistan, you had a lot of men who have been fighting for over two decades. Lots of good NCO material. But the concept of the Western NCO (a professional supervisor who is respected and well paid) is largely unknown in Afghanistan. The old Afghan army was based largely on the Soviet model, which treated most NCOs as senior privates and left most of the supervisory duties to officers. Most of the Afghan men with combat experience, however, were not in the army, but in tribal war parties (usually squad or platoon size). Here, many of them they gained good NCO type experience at the squad and platoon sergeant level. These men have been found and given some training for squad and platoon sergeant positions. Those that are at the platoon sergeant level, and are also literate, are being used as 1st sergeants (who have to handle some paperwork).
Another advantage the Afghans have over the Iraqis is a warrior mentality. Its easier to make the Afghans understand that for an army to work, troops must learn how to use their weapons (and take good care of them), and stand and fight. While Iraq has produced some good soldiers, most Iraqis want nothing to do with fighting. However, with good training and NCOs, just about anyone can be turned into an effective soldier. Unfortunately for Iraq, most of the good NCOs and officers were Sunni Arabs. These men are vulnerable to Saddams enforcers, who are still around and either killing Sunni veterans who join the new army, or threatening those considering it. Thus the Iraqis have a hard time getting experienced Sunni Arabs to serve as NCOs. So in Iraq, NCOs must be developed the hard way, by taking men with potential and having them learn on the job.
Warrior mentality indeed. But on the job experience, battle experience, counts for a lot in the end. The Iraqi Army has the potential to become far more lethal than the Afghanistan one, on a 1 to 1 basis. Iranians better watch out in 10 years, we won't even need to invade them, we'll just get the Afghanis and Iraqis to do it for us.
The MSM maybe needs to show this and also maybe give a damn.
WIA\\ KIA \\US Total\\ Other KIA \\Total KIA
10,740 \\\1,440 \\12,180\\ 171 \\ 1,611
After Fallujah the Second, there were much less wounded. It is interesting, in a Fog of War sense. Taking Fallujah out near the end of the year, close to the elections, in most likely instances derailed the Z-Man's plans to disrupt the elections.
It is clear that the strategic victory of January 30 is immense, whether it was worth waiting to take out Fallujah or not in return for 4,000 wounded remains for future historians to decide.
The numbers really do give the lie to Ted Kennedy and his ilk's talk about having more "international" troops to take off the load from American troops. The "international" troops aren't doing the dieing, and probably would not do the dieing. In the case of Britain and Australia, they are incapable of doing the dieing as they are given the safe zones to patrol. The Kurdish and the Shia zones. If we gave them Fallujah to attack, they would have been wiped out.
I say that because I would be curious to see the casualty to death ratios for Australian, British, etc forces. American forces are holding a 1 to 10 ration, 1 death for every 10 casualties. This is rather unusual, as I would have expected something closer to the 1 to 2 ratios of some previous wars.
The road side bombs certainly increased the fatality ratio, at first anyway. But the military sure did learn quick.
What this all means of course, is that our medic technology, training, and abilities have advanced quite far given that Fallujah, the type of Black Hawk Down scenario, still upholds the 1 to 10 ratio. The suicide bomb in January that made the ratio 1 to 4, still placed much importance on our medical abilities.
I think you make a lot of good points on American mistakes, Ali. I'm not sure I agree with your take on the reasons American's have mixed feelings about taking action in Iraq, though. I think the real reasons Americans have mixed feelings has more to do with a long held American belief than any opinion Americans may have of the Iraqi people. America has always been a country made up of people that have a wide variety of cultures, backgrounds, and religious beliefs. One of the reasons that we have been so successful as a country despite our differences is the belief shared by the majority of Americans that each individual has the right to believe and live the way he or she chooses as long as that person respects the right of others to do the same. In a way it is both one of America's great strengths and one of America's great weaknesses. The belief means that Americans tend to be willing to fight oppressors dont let others try to force their beliefs on us, and despite some s Jeremy Garrett | Email | 02.14.05 - 8:05 pm | #
(continued) some serious mistakes in our past generally tend to be tolerant of others. However, the belief also means that some Americans are often reluctant to take action or that we feel some guilt after taking action because we worry we might be forcing our own beliefs or way of life on others. This isnt the first time Americans have felt doubts about getting involved in a conflict even if our involvement would have been for the right reasons. World War II is a good example. There was a lot of very heated debate about whether we should enter the war against the Germans before Pearl Harbor, just as there has been over our involvement in Iraq. In a way I think some Americans needed Pearl Harbor to reassure them that we were doing the right thing. Im hoping the Iraqi elections may be having a similar effect. Despite my one disagreement, I thought what you wrote was as intelligent and insightful as ever, and I am looking forward to reading your future postings. Jeremy Garrett | Email | 02.14.05 - 8:07 pm | #
I got this from Ali's blog, once of Iraq the Model.
It was a pretty insight comment. The idea of the greatest weakness and the greatest strength. Especially in how American morale is bolstered by aggressive action and lowered if that action is debated too much on the merits of justification or not.
Americans ARE warmongers, we love being given a justification to kick your ass.
What the Marine says is substance, anyone else on the Left, whom are criticizing the Marine, only produces mirages.
Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. . . . It's fun to shoot some people[..]
''You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,'' Gen. Mattis added. ''So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.''
Without the Marines, life would be a lot duller, and a lot shorter.
Of course it need not be stated that the MSM took it out of context. Of course, it need not be stated, that the fake liberals are more concerned with propriety, image, and self-esteem than they are ever concerned about morale.
A guest said on Dennis Miller's show, that he sees no way that this Marine in a leadership position, is helping win the War on Al-Qaeda, not the War on Terror even though he said those words he meant Al-Qaeda not other terroist organizations that may be in league with Al-Qaeda. See, he sees no way that any morale boost helps win wars. Just as he sees no way that any morale blackhole that is the MSM, whom he supports asking the "tough questions" about Iraq, is helping us lose the war. That is definitely a mirage.
Colmes, spoke his usual litany of "I don't know from that garbage dump he acquired such material".
PRESS: You know, it bothers me, Sean. But what bothers me is this is an issue on which you and Alan Colmes and I should all agree.
There is no defending these remarks. Theyre despicable. It makes him sound like Hannibal Lecter. Even in war, it is not fun to shoot people.
It is fun to shoot people. People like shooting in ranges, and some Marines who were caught in a stronghold cut off from the rest of the forces, said after the fact that it was like shooting at targets on a range, because all the enemies were RUNNING ACROSS their view in plain sight.
Regardless of whether it is fun or not in war to kick the enemy's ass, or whether VICTORY is exultation based or diversity based, it was definitely the right remark to a group of Marines in Iraq. A great morale booster from a senior General who was in Afghanistan, helping the troops in Iraq fight a much harder war.
And when fake liberals like Press say such hate based things, they are traitors via their attempts to shut off First Ammendment rights to both those who support the Marine's comments and the right of LT. General himself to say what he wants that does not compromise military security.
There is a chance that future generations will look back, and remember his "quote" for what it is. Patton's "You win in war not by dieing for your country but by making the other son of a bitch die for his".
Heres the perspective I would suggest, Sean. Think about this. How would we think if some Al Qaeda (search) terrorist said, "Its fun to shoot those pale-faced Americans. You know? I mean, they let women dominate."
Oh, you mean hear a terroist say on CNN these things? I would think we have a Fifth Column.
Or do you mean hear a terroist say these things when we have a bullet with their name etched on it, standing in front of us blindfolded with his last wish?
Or are you talking about hearing terroists say this in their safehouse just moments before we launch a Predator Hellfire missile on them?
Fake liberals need more specificity.
PRESS: They let women become their bosses, and so its fun to shoot them because theyre nothing but girly men."
PRESS: Oh, come on. Sean, youre hurting yourself here. Look, this guy is wearing the uniform of the United States. Hes got the responsibility to represent the United States, No. 1.
No. 2, he is responsible for figuring out how to better train our Marines. The message that hes sending our young Marines is, "Hey, youre an American. Go over there; have fun, kill people."
Saying girly men and then "Marines" in the same breath, is not good for your health dude.
PRESS: Let me finish a sentence. There are 140,000 of our men and women other there who are doing a heroic job.
HANNITY: Bill Press...
PRESS: And this idiot makes them all look bad.
The only idiots that makes the military look bad, are idiots like Press who don't know how to win wars but think he can win this one via PR techniques and propaganda. For the other side, that is.
PRESS: I think he ought to be fired. And you know whats a scandal? Wheres Donald Rumsfeld? Why hasnt he condemned these remarks? Its been more than 24 hours.
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Its really amazing.
PRESS: Where is the commander in chief?
COLMES: Its really remarkable, Bill. I find this indefensible.
You know, again, you had a great analogy: if it were the converse, what would people be saying? You know, we have a certain moral standard. We love to talk about how moral and just we are and that war is not about revenge. Its about justice, especially in response to what happened on September 11.
And this is a vengeful comment that you would think would be beneath the dignity of someone defending the United States of America.
PRESS: You know, look, I compare it to Abu Ghraib (search). To me, the same thing with Abu Ghraib. What would we think if our prisoners were being treated like that? We would be up in arms, rightfully so.
The Arab community is going to be up in arms, rightfully so, about what this general said. It is not saying our soldiers dot do their duty. We want them to do their duty. We want them to defend us. We know that killing is part of warfare. But to go out and say you take lethal pleasure in it?
COLMES: By the way, those who have fought in wars, most of them talk about how ugly it is, how terrible it is, how reprehensible it is, but you do it for your country. Ive never heard anybody say its fun to do it.
Colmes never heard anything different, because he never met an ex-military retired person that is bitter over his service, that Colmes DIDN'T like.
PRESS: Well, no, frankly. But I mean, look, again, this is what you might expect to hear from Usama bin Laden, right?
I hate fake liberals. They don't deserve Ammendment Rights. But since this is an unjust world, with unjust scheisse going on, they get them nonetheless.
Talk about high stakes poker.
Bush gambled on Iraq. Bush gambles on which invasion plan to implement. Bush gambled on whether to go to the UN. Bush gambled about Osama Bin Laden's capture. Bush gambled on Saddam Hussein's capture when Bin Laden was not yet caught.
Bush even gambles HIS FREAKING POLITICAL CAREER.
the retroactive increase in death benefits paid to the families of servicepeople killed in action. They waited until after the election, when doing it sooner might have gotten them some votes.
And like all gamblers, you win some, you lose some.
Many would call his actions mistakes, but because he won by being principled, I cannot call it a mistake. I call it luck.
On one hand, I feel good and believe that Bush did this for reasons of genuine principled belief, probably against Karl Rove's advice.
On the other, I feel rather weird, knowing that Bush bet the future history of Iraq and the United States on the "appearance" that he may be catering to the military for more votes.
The day after the Cuban Missile crisis, people must have felt the same way. Realization that the crisis is over, but resentful of risks taken, but without the knowledge to know whether the risks really affected the outcome.
True heroes like Rick Rescorla in 9/11, and this Marine are unknown to the great majority of the people they died to protect.
In this age of speed of light communications, we cannot blame it on the technology. We cannot blame it on the government limiting access to the military on security reasons, as reporters are imbedded in military units. We cannot even blame it on the majority not caring, though some truely do not care.
No, I blame it on the inability of the media to recognize the efficacy of values. Not moral values, just traditinal American values.
Honor
Loyalty
Sacrifice
Self-respect
Discipline
Those are the values true Warriors hold in their heart of hearts. And those stateside who hold the same values, cannot help but love and appreciate those who have taken those values to the extremest limit of human ability.
They are the frontiersmen, of the human soul. Just as the elites in America, are the writers of the human soul.
Something that only got a sideways mention from the MSM, including Fox, was this action figure that was touted by the AP as genuine.
The media isn't just sloppy, the MSM isn't just quick on the drawl bad on the aim, i.e. Rathergate, the MSM is also a collaborator.
The whole ActionFigureGate episode really makes me think about the standards applied by international major media(IMM) to the stories they disseminate. Why was major media so quick to disseminate pictures of an action figure as a genuine hostage photo?
More to the point, why are major media so quick to disseminate anything that a terrorist group, or purported terrorist group, releases?
The quickest way to get the prime spot in IMM today is to release a picture of somebody with a gun to their head. The IMM will immediately disseminate the picture and all your demands and statements!
For the terrorist, it is like being given millions of dollars in free advertising.
Back in the 20's and 30's, businesses tried to advertise themselves by pulling dangerous publicity stunts. They used human flies, faked car crashes, exploding buildings or anything they thought would get them free media attention. After a time, however, the media developed a consensus standard that such events would not be reported and the stunts for the most part stopped .
The media stopped covering the events for two reasons: (1) they sold advertising so giving away free advertising hurt the bottom line and (2) people were getting hurt and they were getting hurt only because the media was paying attention. When they stopped paying attention, people stopped getting hurt.
People think badly of Bush's dependence and focus on loyalty. Because like honor and truth, loyalty is something today's post-modern society sees as not so much a virtue, as an anachronism. What you are loyal to, depends solely on where and when you were born, or at least that is what they keep telling themselves. Their sense of predetermination shows more and more, when it becomes a convenient excuse to look down on the President for cultivating loyalty.
It is even historically and geographically consistent in a way, as New England was founded by Calvinists and Protestants. Predestination was bread and butter to their Manifest Destiny forefathers.
What these people don't understand, is that if you can't get someone's loyalty, then your cause is most likely to be unjust for those people.
That is why they take the loyalty of the black vote for granted, they believe that one's fealty is owed, not given.
'Rambo' helps keep U.S. base in Afghanistan secure
The head of this news story, care to guess from which publication it was derived? Forget MSM and think military journalism. The military understands loyalty, which is something the Left needs to stop reeducating themselves about.
It would be ironic if they set the pace of the culture and ended up with a Praetorian Guard, that coincidentally elminated the left wing people in government and all the lefties.
The Dutch, need more tolerance. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they need to teach others more tolerance. Rather than subscribing to multicultural ethics as an excuse to do nothing.
Now Dutch language blog GeenStijl offers a real class room recoding, in which a Moroccan student demands respect from his teacher. Click here to see how aggressive he is and how afraid the teacher is. The boy wanted to visit mister Smith, but the teacher does not allow it. The boy then shouts: get up, get up, .... and lets go, lets go,.... They found the video clip on a well known forum Maroc.nl (a subsidized Moroccan website with much antisemitic and anti western postings)
God Protect the Right, which is certainly something the Dutch don't seem to understand. Neither Godliness nor Rightness.
Maybe the Dutch should take lessons from France, about how to do things right
Thank God for the United States Marine Corps. For without them, the world would be a much less bearable and lethal a place.
As Chesty Puller said at Chosin Reservoir, "So they've got us surrounded. Good! Now we can fire in any direction. Those bastards won't get away this time!"
Sad to announce, but true:
Well, sure. ABC wants to "balance" its coverage of President Bush's inauguration with coverage of a military funeral:
Jan. 19, 2005 For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below: Note that only the families of Iraqi war dead need apply. If a soldier died in Afghanistan, or aiding tsunami victims in Indonesia or Sri Lanka, or in a training exercise, never mind. That isn't the "balance" ABC is looking for.
See powerlineblog at powerlineblog.com/archives/009245.php
And boy oh boy, did they actually do that. Peter Jennings spoke about a military funeral while at the same time covering the inauguration behind some "Fu*k Bush" Nazi signs in the background.
Ties in nicely with a nice background on media bias
Nice nickname for Al-Zar.
AUSTIN BAY WRITES THAT ZARQAWI HAS BEEN SUCKERED:Courtesy of instapundit.
Z-Mans been suckered. Z-Man is the troops nickname for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaedas jefe in Iraq. Z-MAN has declared a fierce war on democracy. Zs taken Bushs bait except the Presidents bait of promoting democracy and declaring war on tyranny and 0ppression isnt mere bait, its essential American values. The ideological dimensions of the War on Terror (The Millennium War) were there from the get-go, but the President inaugural address has focused them. Thats a huge step, I think, to obtaining the kind of resilient victory and secure peace the American people deserve. . . .
Yup a week before the Iraqi election Zarqawi has come out in public for imperialism, in his case Islamo-fascist imperialism.
Read the whole thing. It's like somebody planned it or something.
UPDATE: Zarqawi isn't getting much geek-respect, either, as a reader emails: "Someone should tell that Zarqawi guy that until he puts his tapes up as podcasts, we aren't listening."
I find it hilarious that Iran thinks it can get nanotechnology as a "deterent" against us. In addition to all the other anti-American anti-liberty forces out there. THe argument I've heard is that if they can get nukes, they can get nano weapons. I find that laughable. Their societies produce like .0001 of the creative and scientific outputs of the US, and the only way they "get" advanced weapons is for traitors like the EU to sell it to Iran, North Korea, and etc. Traitors that only have that technology because they were once like us and for the fact that we shared much of our miltech with them because we were "allies". Just like the way the Soviets got nukes was by stealing our designs in the first place.
It is guaranteed, not by me, but by history, that the US is going to be the first country to get nano bombs. If we can of course convince the military that it is the shit of course, and Democrats don't label the proponents WMD fanatics.
P.S. One in two ain't bad.
A hilarious satire that elevates and propagates a unique idea, one that isn't really asked much for obvious reasons
That idea, is this. That what the Democrats say about our loss of freedoms and other policies, are true. It asks the question, if they are true as some believe they are true, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? It is not such a simple question as I've found out. As what the Democrats are doing about it, is fundamentally different from what the Republicans would have done, if the same things were believed by Republicans to be occuring and the sides were flipped.
o whats left, Lefties? Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?
Ill tell you what youre going to do about it: youre not going to do one damned thing but continue with your whining, thats what, and its not because deep down youre all cowards either. Its because deep down, you know youre full of shit. You dont even believe half the stuff youre currently crying about yourselves.
Because if you did, you wouldnt be talking about it. You wouldnt be writing whiny letters to the editor; you wouldnt be fearfully mincing down to the Canadian Consulate to half-seriously inquire about moving; you wouldnt be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses. Youd be gearing up and arming yourselves for the fight of your lives. And much to your surprise, youd have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags.
And thats why youre going to keep right on losing elections. If even one third of what you say was true, youd have Americans of every political stripe rushing to your side to man the barricades. But it isnt anything like true, and we all know it, and weve all known it ever since you tried to claim that proposed reductions in the annual rate of increase of various federal budget items during the Reagan years were actually heartless slashing of the budget by people who wanted poor people to die. Weve known it ever since you railed during the Clinton years about how the welfare reform forced on him by the evil Gingrich Repubs amounted to cultural and economic genocide, and then watched as hordes of welfare cheatswho you always claimed didnt existwere quietly expunged from the rolls and went back to work.
In other words, youre all hype and no hump.
An ironic twist if you watched the Republican convention of 2004 and read the liberal comments about Zell Miller's appeance, particularly liberal commentators with their talking points
If you will recall, they said Zell isn't a Democrat. Well, hell yeah, I agree with them. Nobody can be a Democrat if their ideas about the the party, though right on the money, is ostracized and made to look a traitor. Many essences of Democrat talking points are simply projections, projections of what they would do in certain situations that are projected unto the Republican party, to make them look worse. This is why when the Democratic Party of Georgia wants to split off from the "National" party, they are called traitors, disloyal, anarchists, and etc.
Now of course, they stole what Zell said, but it won't help them, not at all. Because you cannot just steal American technology to be on par with American military might. Oh no, you have to live the military life, obey the laws and traditions of the US, and many other meaningless on the surface, but very important facets. That is why the Democratic Party, though they will assimilate the ideas of people they purge out of the party, can never truly benefit from those stolen ideas. Some means preclude certain ends, and this kind of "crushing of dissent" and "mindless drivel" combined with an insatiable ideological intolerance of different views, precludes the goal of real unity, real victory, and real representation.
Thanks to a proposed law that would limit permissible speech concerning religion, the UK is is in the middle of a debate about free speech. Two recent events have exacerbated the situation: a now-cancelled play called Bezhti upset many Sikhs (the playwright has gone into hiding); a musical called Jerry Springer: The Opera was broadcast by the BBC and reportedly offended many Christians who in protest burned their TV licenses. The writers' group English PEN is worried about the law, and has written a letter asking for a meeting with the Home Secretary.
I've seen a news show about Brits and their TV licenses.This is one of the comments to the link.
Here's the fun part: If you don't buy one then the authorities will send a radio scanner truck by your house and check if you're watching anything.
It's like something out of Hogan's Heroes when the Gestapo used to send out radio trucks to home in on the underground. Maybe that's another reason they didn't like Prince Harry wearing that Nazi costume at a party.
Comment by: Ion at January 14, 2005 08:06 PM
All I can say is... Patriot Act removes our liberties. America is evil. America is Jesus Land. America has too much religion. America is not free. America is a fascist land of idiots and sheep.
I blame John Ashcroft. Easiest guy to pick on, after all if I started blaming the real culperts, they might blacklist me.
Alpha are the longer posts and Beta are the shorter ones.
That is what these elections are about and why they are so crucial. We don't want the kind of civil war that we have in Iraq now. That is a war of Sunni and Islamist militants against the U.S. and its Iraqi allies, many of whom do not seem comfortable fighting with, and seemingly for, the U.S. America cannot win that war. That is a civil war in which the murderous insurgents appear to be on the side of ending the U.S. "occupation of Iraq" and the U.S. and its allies appear to be about sustaining that occupation.
One of the reasons the critics don't understand this is that they weren't for the war in the first place, and people not for the war never really gave any thought to what to do after the war since "thinking" about it is like a thought crim,e a thought crime that seemingly gave support to war.
So, obviously they are still reacting to the terroists, instead of preempting the terroists. Mentally, I mean. They are still acting as if the war never happened, that we're supposed to be "winning the peace" even though "nobody" signed a cease fire, a peace treaty, or said anything about ALL combat operations have ceased. That's pathetic, really.
They just don't geti, and if only they would change their way of thinking, they would. But that's not going to happen, so we might as well wait or the nuke to drop.
Posted By : Ymarsakar |
Link |
Military and Strategy
| Comments (0)
This "feels" like a juju bean
All the above is unworthy of a serious political party. As for this exit-poll data that everyone's all excited about, what does it mean when 22 percent of the electorate say their main concern was "moral issues"? Gay marriage? Abortion? Or is it something broader? For many of us, the war is also a moral issue, and the Democrats are on the wrong side of it, standing not with the women voting proudly in Afghanistan's first election but with the amoral and corrupt U.N., the amoral and cynical Jacques Chirac, the amoral and revolting head-hackers whom Democratic Convention guest of honor Michael Moore described as Iraq's ''minutemen.''
Another take on, even if you win a political election, you are still retarded. Derived from what people say to an argument on the internet, when they themselves can't argue either side.
Post Election-Selection syndrome, is just a more... applied version of the popular disdain over common dialogue.
posted by Ymarsakar at 1/25/2005 06:05:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home