Blogs For Victory

Is There Glory in War?

by Mark Noonan on March 27th, 2008 at 01:22pm

Discussed over at Battle Born Politics.

Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!

92 Responses to “Is There Glory in War?”

BARRASSO says:
March 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Short answer no. Longer answer, if yes why aren’t you volunteering?
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well, what did His Holiness Pope John Paul II have to say on that subject:

Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore, in addition to causing horrendous damage, they prove ultimately futile. War is a defeat for humanity. Only in peace and through peace can respect for human dignity and its inalienable rights be guaranteed.

Against the backdrop of war in the twentieth century, humanity’s honour has been preserved by those who have spoken and worked on behalf of peace.
__________
Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_08121999_xxxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html
Almiranta says:
March 27th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Diana, thank you for the insightful quote from Pope Benedict, illustrating so clearly that when he strays from pronouncements on Catholic doctrine he is just a person, and his opinions are just that–opinions.

Fighting to defend one’s country is noble.
Fighting to bring or defend freedom is noble.
Fighting protect ones’ rights is noble.

Glory? It’s hard to use the word “glory” in connction with something so inherently brutal and violent as war. But yes, there is nobility in fighting for what is right.

And there is comfort in knowing that one does not have to fight, for freedom or survival, if there are others to fight for him. Or her.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Yes, when Pope John Paul II issued those words under his name he should have known he disagreed with you and just shut up. Unless they say things you approve of those Roman Catholic priests are just a bunch of men in dresses, right?
kimberly4victory says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
DP: Do you ever bring anything to this blog except your hatred of Bush, all Republicans, and religion? You never “debate” the issue like many other liberals on this blog.

I actually enjoy debating with them. When I see your posts, I cringe and think, “What a hateful person she is. I feel sorry for her.”
Littlefinger says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ahhhhh,

I love the smell of napalm in the morning!

It smells like…victory!

War is peace, up is down, black is white.

Sickening.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Kimberly,
Don’t feel sorry for her, Diana only has two notes in her symphony; if deprived of her hatred she would only have her own inadequacy with which to contend. I personally believe that her snarky posts should not be deleted but should resound for all the world to see; a miserable human being uncomfortable in the company of her superiors able to only lash out in vitriolic rage. With debating skills like littlefinger, most liberals have nothing to add to the discussion but blind undisciplined anger
Littlefinger says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
K4v,

I find your last comment off topic and inflammatory.

Please desist or I will tell on you.
Bull says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
i guess war was wrong when our founding fathers wanted independance.

i guess war was wrong when we fought to keep the union in tack and to help abolish slavery among many other important issues.

i guess war was wrong when we fought to end nazi facism and the persecution of millions of jews.

i guess war was wrong when we tried to help stop the slaughter of many east asians and tried to stop the spread of communism.

i guess war was wrong when helped turn back a brutal dictator from invading an allied country.

i guess war was wrong when we ousted the taliban who was haboring islamic fundamentalist who perputrated a deadly attack on our very own soil.

“Yes, when Pope John Paul II issued those words under his name he should have known he disagreed with you and just shut up.”
I guess when he talks about the evils of abortion he should have know that he disagreed with YOU and just shut up. stop using religion only when it fits your template.
Michael says:
March 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Is there glory in war? Sure there is. If not, there is no heroism or bravery which are the thing that lead to glory. The referenced article includes a quote from John McCain the denounces war and he says he detests war. He should know, he saw every aspect of it and came out of the Viet Nam war a hero. I too was in the service and served in Viet Nam during the war. I was a volunteer - not a draftee - as was the tradition in my family (my father served 40 years in the Navy). I knew I could end up in armed conflict and may get injured or killed but I felt I owed that bit of service to my country. Ten years later I got out of the service unscathed by enemy fire. My service was honorable but not heroic nor glorious. But people like McCain and many others who risked it all, suffered much and some gave their lives, all have a claim to glory - the glory of fighting and defending America. This is a concept that even Democrats used to understand. JFKennedy - WWII hero. LBJohnson - Naval Officer. Jimmy Carter - Naval Officer and nuclear sub commander and many Democrat members of congress served with pride and a sense of duty.
But the latest fashion from the left is to blame America for the world’s woes and refuse to support her when the county is at war. Their latest doublespeak is, “I oppose the war, but I support the troops.” But all you have to do is look to places like Berkeley to see that’s a lie. As a former “troop” engaged in a war, those words would not have cheered me up or made me feel anything but disgust for the utterer. Once America goes to war, and this war was approved by congress overwhelmingly, it is the duty of patriotic Americans to support it as well as the troops. They are glorious. What they do is glorious. And if Iraq ends up free and safe, the Iraqi people will say the same thing about America. Our soldiers are already seeing that in many parts of Iraq, especially from the young and those who Saddam persecuted. Denying glory in war goes against history. And like it or not, war is a reality in this world and will be for a long, long time.
Littlefinger says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Why debate here?

On this blog, war is a necessary evil. War is glorious. If war is glorious, then war is good.

Oh to die in blood spattered wild eyed glory.

Praise Jesus.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
kimberly4victory,

Need I point out that you recently complained bitterly of how you felt I was assuming things about you, to the point of posting a list of your many genuinely admirable traits, and yet here you are claiming, sans evidence, that I hate “Bush, all Republicans, and religion”? Non-sycophant commenters here are occasionally pompously reminded, in reference to gays and lesbians, that it is possible to “hate the sin and love the sinner”. However, my opposition to the supremely destructive policies of this President and his Republican enablers can only mean personal animus? Obviously, it can, if you only accord any status to people who agree with those who post here. Your assertion that I “hate religion” is even more preposterous and evidence-free. With your permission, I’ll be sure to inform the rector of my parish when I see him this Sunday morning.

Speaking directly to the topic here. War may be necessary. It may be essential. There will be moments when lives that are intertwined by the bonds that exist among those who put themselves in harm’s way, bonds which are seldom experienced by those who sit at home, are lifted up by what they do as individual acts for each other. However, the successful prosecution of even a just and necessary war, is no more a source of glory to the nation or nations that prosecute it than that which accrues to a surgeon who successfully removes a tumor from a patient’s body. The physician can be praised and thanked for their ability and dedication to their profession, but to call a war “glorious” is an obscenity.
TiredofLibBullSh** says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Except for ending:

slavery
torture
oppression
Naziizm
communism
fascism
japanese imperialism
death camps

war has never solved anything!
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Well, that would be great if any of those things had actually been permanently ended, although, admittedly Japanese imperialism isn’t likely to make a comeback.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you there. That was funny! Are you one of my “superiors” in whose august company I am “miserable” and “uncomfortable” in? Excellent! Do you get some kind of certificate to hang on the wall if you’re one of my superiors or perhaps a signet ring? That would be awesome!
TiredofLibBullSh** says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“Well, that would be great if any of those things had actually been permanently ended, although, admittedly Japanese imperialism isn’t likely to make a comeback.”

Are you serious?

So, you are saying that if war cannot permanently end any one of those situations, it is not worth fighting?

Thank you, useful idiot, for chiming in with your usual BS!
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Well, TiredofLibBullSh**, you compel me to point out that in my Comment # 12 I wrote this, “War may be necessary. It may be essential.” I leave you the exercise to work out the answer to your own outraged question.
congressive says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
TiredofConBullSh**

Just testing…

“Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war.”

Amen to that, brother McCain. Amen to that.

Fools and frauds.

I can’t decide whether this Bush administration is the former or the latter.
SteaM says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“Fools and frauds.
I can’t decide whether this Bush administration is the former or the latter.”

Congressive,

Doesn’t matter because either way Executive Privilege allows it.
Sunny says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“Fools and frauds.
I can?t decide whether this Bush administration is the former or the latter” congressive

I suggest the Bush administration is both.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Not ne cessary, Diana, Res ipsa loquitur.
kimberly4victory says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
My apologies, DianA. Hate is such a strong word. I should have used “extreme dislike of”.

I don’t need to assume anything about you. Just by reading your posts and your little snippy comments, it is evident to even a blind man you extremely dislike Bush, Republicans, and religion (or at least, the Catholic religion … “men in dresses”).

Here’s a new description for fools and frauds:

A fool is going to vote for Obama, the fraud.
Almiranta says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Herk, you have outlined the impressions made by Diana since she joined the blog to spew her surly snideness at will, pretending as far as I can tell that her true intent is to engage in rational political discourse. So far, I have seen remarakbly little that could pass as such, instead seeing a litany of complaints, attacks, non sequiters, and the kind of non-response she posted here today about war.

An example of the inanity that seems to pass for political discourse on the far far Left is this gem, referring to Pope John Paul II: “….he should have known he disagreed with you and just shut up. Unless they say things you approve of those Roman Catholic priests are just a bunch of men in dresses, right?”

I mean, how can anyone address such blather? No Pope ever has to even consider whether or not I agree or disagree with him on anything—how absolutely silly to make such a nonsensical remark. I think she may have been trying for sarcasm or something, but just ended up sounding—silly.

And priests are, with the exception of those who may have had the opportunity for homosexual predation play a larger role in their vocations than a sincere desire to serve God, just that—servants of God. It is a difficult and demanding vocation, for which I have the utmost respect—but then my mind does not twist in the direction of calling them “men in dresses”.

What an odd term, “men in dresses”. It brings to mind far different images than of men of God. Kinda makes me wonder where Diana is coming from…..

But anyway, Diana seems to have a need to intrude on a conservative site and strut her stuff, feeble as that stuff might be. I am one of many to find her “stuff” uniformly uninformed, hostile, and far more indicative of her own pathology than of a well-formed and rational political foundation.

But she is not always negative. She is downright enthusiastic about killing unborn children, for example. But mostly she is just another of those who feel that dumping their hostility on others is the same as making a contribution to discourse.

No one LIKES war. It is a favorite Lefty distortion to take a willingness to go to war for the right reasons and twist it into a love of war. But it’s ridiculous.

And the truth is, as much as they hate to admit it, it is and always has been the willingness of the courageous to fight for the rights and freedoms of even the cowardly that has made it possible for them to come here to deposit their smelly little droppings.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
One of the most utterly repulsive aspects of our invasion of Iraq is this kind of language:

It will be some time before the Iraqi Security Forces are able to ensure the security of the country against Al Qaeda, particularly to ensure that Al Qaeda is not able to establish safe havens anywhere in the country That will be some time. And we’ve got some fighting ahead of us.

That from the mouth of Fred Kagan, someone whose closest approach to the military is teaching at West Point, and who was speaking at the American Enterprise Institute’s “Iraq: The Way Ahead” event three days ago. Then, to emphasize his battle-tested solidarity with them, he went on to refer to Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack in this way, “Before I turn it over to my brothers from Brookings.” Yes, war-hardened brothers in arms, that’s them.
bongoman says:
March 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Almiranta: “She [Diana] is downright enthusiastic about killing unborn children, for example.”

I challenge you to post any comment from Diana that exhibits enthusiasm for killing children. Ball’s in your court.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
kimberly4victory,

Well, I can’t see that your word substitution made any difference especially since you continue to claim things about me for which you proffer no evidence other than an airy wave towards your “reading [my] posts”. So, as I suggested, it would seem you believe that only the true-believers here can “hate the sin and love the sinner”. It’s a good way to avoid actual debate, “There’s no point in talking to X, they’re just filled with hate.”

Your inability to offer evidence of hatred towards religion is particularly telling since you could only point, after I used it, to my use of the common and not factually inaccurate phrase “men in dresses” to show I must hate the Roman Catholic Church. Hmm, I guess that must also explain why I referred to the late John Paul II by the reverential form of address “His Holiness” in Comment # 2. It must also explain why I refer to myself regularly as an Anglo-Catholic.

We know Almiranta believes in hating the sin and not the sinner. That’s why she never expends multiple paragraphs over multiple threads wordily declaiming, yet again, why she thinks that I’m beneath her contempt.
congressive says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
George’s war would be much more glorious if he’d stop doing this kind of stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?_r=1&ex=1364270400&en=c04d358a662752c5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Hey, go figure… Obama was right about our troops in Afghanistan getting better stuff from the Taliban than our own supply line.
congressive says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hillary, however, shows great composure in war as this video proves - caution, graphic fake violence…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Almiranta says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
bongodude, I have no intention of going back into the archives to dig up Diana’s defense of abortion at will and her hostile reaction to those who find it reprehensible. It’s there—–go find it if you think I am wrong. If you are just trying to waste my time, or pull some snotty gotcha, go somewhere else where someone cares.

“Challenge”. Ha. As if you have the authority to issue a challenge…….. I guess I’d say the bongodude has no balls in any court….

Yes. Di, I do believe that you find it “most utterly repulsive” to hear people talking about honoring their commitments instead of just tucking their tails between their legs and scooting on home.

That does not make those people wrong. It just makes you a died-in-the-wool radical Liberal, albeit it one who found it grossly insulting to be called “red”.

Go figure.

OK, so the positions are staked out. Radical Libs think all war is just wrong. Conservatives and moderates think it is a sad and unpleasant necessity when things like freedom, for example, are at stake.

But y’all can go on indefintely laying claim to the Higher Moral Ground by thinking war is bad, and pretending that that means the Evil Other Guys think war is good.

No one thinks it is good—just that it can be necessary.

And it is those who were willing to fight who have made it possible for such as you radicals to spew your venom at will. Too bad you don’t have the character to admit this and thank those who sacrificed so much to make this a free country, much less those who are trying to bring the same freedom to others.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I gather from Diana that we are to disregard Mr. Kagen owing to his lack of personal military expertise in the field of combat operations, and only holds a PdD in military history, actually I think it’s two PhD’s)but are subjected to Diana’s “expertise” by virtue of her siblings’ experience.

Yes, just as Hillary is qualified because she was married to a president; Diana is qualified because she lived in the same house as veterans.

Almiranta,
Perhaps Diana should enlist or at least go “experience” sniper fire; which, I assume is now democrat-speak for a warm reception.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Think how that will change the very nature of our language.

I can’t wait to get home tonight, my sweetie is planning some real sniper fire after dinner.

Please RSVP by Friday, the Party will begin promptly at 9:00; sniper fire is guaranteed for all.

What mother wouldn’t want sniper fire for her daughter, “Stay low and keep your eyes on my 6, Chelsea, we’re breaking for the convoy.”
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
congressive,

I had cited that over on the open thread. I can just imagine these guys, “Dude, we got a $300 million contract from the U. S. government. Let’s go party!” It was especially classy when one of them wrote to the judge dealing with his ex-girlfriend trying to obtain a protective order against him saying:

I am the President and only official employee of my business. My business is currently of great importance to the country as I am licensed Defense Contractor to the United States Government in the fight against terrorism in Iraq and I am doing my very best to provide our troops with all their equipment needs on pending critical contracts.

Of course, it was a load of malarkey since he was in the process of supplying decades-old ammunition to the Afghan Army and police, not the United States military. We hope that the Administration’s enthusiasm for “outsourcing” the war doesn’t extend to finding dopes like this to supply our own troops with ammunition.
Tractatus says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
seeing a litany of complaints, attacks, non sequiters [sic], and non-response

IMAX-level projection there, ‘Ranty.

Also, way to cower away from having to back up your ridiculous statements. I know, I know, proving things is for liberals–you just go for the highest level of truthiness!
NeoClown says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“Only those who have never lived war could find glory in it.” – Neoclown.

“War would end if the dead could return.” — Stanley Baldwin”

“Everything, everything in war is barbaric…. But the worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being.” — Ellen Key

“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” — John F. Kennedy

“War is the science of destruction.” — John S. C. Abbott

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. President, Republican Party

“The arms race can kill, though the weapons themselves may never be used…. [B]y their cost alone, armaments kill the poor by causing them to starve.” — Vatican statement to the U.N., 1976

“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” — A computer named WOPR in the film WarGames
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Yeah, bongoman. Almiranta can’t be bothered to do your work for her if you’re not willing to accept things as absolute fact on her say-so. What a loser you must be.

Of course, her disinterest in plunging into the archives to buttress her accusations would be more credible if she didn’t disregard the evidence on the same page as she’s commenting on. Almiranta issues a decree:

OK, so the positions are staked out. Radical Libs think all war is just wrong. Conservatives and moderates think it is a sad and unpleasant necessity when things like freedom, for example, are at stake.

What did I write in Comment # 12? “War may be necessary. It may be essential.” Hooray! Almiranta has now stated that I am both a “died-in-the-wool radical Liberal” and a conservative or a moderate. I guess I’m just whatever people here want me to be.
felix the cat says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
There are several interesting aspects of the comments made on this thread. In the context of the United States (or more accuratly GWB) invading Iraq and then on a regular basis providing excuse after excuse, justifiaction after justification for the faliure of his folly, is that none of the neocons who whipped this into faux reality have ever served in the military and thus are in the “liberal” position to glorify and romanticize war. There is no glory in needless death and John McCain; if you understand his speech yesterday (which was interupted by breaking news of more violence and chaos in Iraq) was trying to distance himself from the delusions that GWB suffers from.
Iraq was no threat to us. What we have is a man child who tried to overcome his personal insecurity by trying proving his machismo in a most uninformed, intellectually deficient and crude way. He has created the very problems he claimed he and he alone was in a position to solve.
But enough with all of that. Like Michael I too was in Vietnam but I was drafted. I never had the “rally ’round the flag boys” enthusiasim of defending America because I knew the entire project was based upon false information fed to a gullable populace still fresh with the memory of Korea and WWII.
The destiny of the US invasion of Iraq will ultimately become a price not worth paying and a concentration on an aspect of middle eastern people, politics and religion that smarter more well informed people would have directed efforts elsewhere.
I will also say this. I find Almiranta to be an abhorent coward. An intellectual pigheaded syncopant who hides behind his or hers keyboard and self gratifies by portraying his or herself to be the embodiement of contemporary social and political enlightenment.
What it really is, is weak,scared and ineffectual. The most accurate poster (in describing reality in a non judgemental, matter-of-fact and dispassionate way) is Diana Powe. Which explains why she is attacked with such fevor and enthusiasim.
So Ally, go scream on the street corner. Have a deabte with your intellectual superiors and see how you fare.
The bottom line is America is at the end of the tunnel with Bush and “So what America thinks” Cheney.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
In that spring of victory the soldiers of the Western Allies met the soldiers of Russia in the center of Europe. They were triumphant comrades in arms. Their peoples shared the joyous prospect of building, in honor of their dead, the only fitting monument-an age of just peace. All these war-weary peoples shared too this concrete, decent purpose: to guard vigilantly against the domination ever again of any part of the world by a single, unbridled aggressive power.
.

From the “Chance for Peace” speech that Neo partially quoted above.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,

Frederick Kagan has plenty of justification for offering his expertise on the conduct of war. If you actually read what I wrote, you’ll not that I didn’t say that he was uninformed or unintelligent. What I objected to (and still object to) is the psychology behind his use of the collective “we” as though he, O’Hanlon and Pollack were in the same position as my nephew in Haditha today. He and his “brothers” don’t have any fighting ahead of them unless they have plans to enlist in the combat arms and volunteer for duty in Iraq.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
That’s a pathetic justification for your convoluted argument; we as a nation have a great struggle ahead of us, while I as a person can no longer fight the battle in the physical sense, I have infinite more combat experience than you. It is we who actually faced the horrors of war that have no objection to fellow Americans expressing a oneness with our military, it is only you who carp from the sidelines that raise the objection.

Go ahead, tell us again how you’re qualified by virtue of family members expierence, we are unimpressed.
Littlefinger says:
March 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Oh the glory of war. To the victor belongs the spoils. Might makes right.

May the sword of righteousness smite the heathen.

As I squeeze the life out of my enemy’s body, seeing his eye’s bulge, his tongue turn blue, I shall know I am right. Because I fight and kill for the greater glory.

Oh glory, how fleeting. I stare down looking at the blood on my hands. I stare at the distant eyes of my enemy.

Oh Glory. I look around at smoking ruins. I take in the sight.

I take in the sight. Hazily.

Oh glory. I sadly shuffle away.

Glory.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot,

No, you assume that the collective we as Americans have a “great struggle ahead of us”. That’s because you, being among the small minority of Americans who think that we were justified in invading Iraq, want to project your approval onto the rest of us. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

As I said, Fred Kagan can talk about how great things are in Iraq and how correct he was in advocating the invasion over at the AEI until the cows arrive for dinner. I have no objection to his doing that. However, it is a repellent (and probably unconscious) mental process that leads him to say, “And we’ve got some fighting ahead of us.” No, Fred. You don’t.
NeoClown says:
March 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I served in the United States Marine Corps as a member of a fire team. All four of us on my team were democrats. Every member of our squad was a democrat. Everyone in our platoon that claimed a political affiliation was a democrat. My platoon served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of us made it home, some didn’t.

Most of the Marines in my platoon came from poor backgrounds. We wanted to improve our lot in life, and thought the military might give us a leg up. The absence of upper middle class preppies, and frat boys (right-wing republicans) serving in the Marine Corps was glaring. I guess they were serving in the Army…

I keep in touch with many of my Marine Corps buddies and one of our favorite pastimes is to read the posts on right-wing blogs. You conservatives are a hoot; and so brave too. We laugh because no republicans were willing to join the Corps and help us fight, but they are more than willing to mock us and call us cowards and lefty liberals.

Almiranta,
In post #23 you stated:
“It is and always has been the willingness of the courageous to fight for the rights and freedoms of even the cowardly that has made it possible for them to come here to deposit their smelly little droppings.”

No need to thank me. I volunteered for the Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy paid me more than minimum wage for my efforts. So poop away.
Herkimer X. Arbuthnot says:
March 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
NeoClown,
From the description of your jarhead unit, I assume you were from Pendleton. I was at El Toro. There wasn’t a democrat to be found there, there were a great deal of frat boys (I’d give my life for), rich man’s kids, career multigenerational military and the occasional grunt to guard the officer’s club. Men and BAM’s I’d walk through hell for. The ratio of college grads with post grad credits was higher then the surrounding population.
NeoClown says:
March 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Herkimer,

MAW huh? What was your MOS?
Buttercup says:
March 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
you were just a piece of S#!T draftee. No surprise there.
We knew what, who, why we were fighting in Viet Nam. Sure there were pukes like you who were posted there, but not among any around the DMZ where I served.
All this BDS is a laugh, sure lets let Iran, Iraq, Syra etc ALL get nukes. Maybe they could launch them at Isreal…..lets say tomorrow AM.
After Isreals nuclear (200+) retaliation-maybe we and Russia could have a REAL exchange.
You KOOKS are nuts, there is a reason we are in the M-E and anyone with .0000000005 oz of brains know why.

so much for your posting rules Noonan.

I find this diatribe offensive. What’re you going to do?

Do your “rules” apply to both sides?
Kahn says:
March 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
14% of the military claims to be Democrat. It’s obvious that the knowledge gap on the left is growing every day.

Glory? Never understood the word. Honor, commitment, sacrifice, duty, loyalty (loyalty more than anything else). These words I understand.
Diana Powe says:
March 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Kahn,

I have no idea if your 14% number is correct or not (although I rather suspect it’s higher than that) but that’s a claim that calls for some evidence. Got any? Don’t cite any polls from any of the Military Times publications. Mark has already dismissed those as worthless.
js says:
March 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
when i was in the service, i was assigned to a special weapons unit

it was our job to lay a curtain of radioactive fallout across the german border so that the russian armored divisions would not cross over into the eastern theater

this, in some logical way, provided nato with enough time to fall into a defense in order to repell anything they would throw at us

glory? yes, there is glory in war

its not in the destruction of property or the killing of our fellow human beings

its in knowing that what we do protects freedom and our way of life, preserving the choice that we were given by our fathers, so that we in turn may pass that choice on to our children and they in turn to thiers

trust me, there is no glory in communism, socialism, tyrany, or the many theocracies in the world today. all of those countries struggle to be a part of the world in this day and age, while those nations and societies who embraced freedom and democracy are ahead by leaps and bounds

we are a republic, in this lies our glory, yet, it is not even a spark compared to the Glory of God that gave it to us

and thats where our right to chose came from
Freedom1 says:
March 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Islam is the evil that confronts us today, and which is at war with the West. Here’s the controversial film that has already sparked Muslim outrage and protests around the world. It was finally released, today…

Video: Geert Wilders’ ‘Fitna’

(Via LGF), “Here it is, the film by Dutch MP Geert Wilders that caused a worldwide uproar before anyone had seen a single frame: Fitna the Movie: Geert Wilders’ film about the Quran (English).

WARNING: there is some graphic footage in here, including video of people jumping from the Twin Towers on 9/11—footage that has been hidden away by the mainstream media.

“Fitna” is excellent. It shows the true face of Islam which is the evil that is at war with the West.
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Freedom 1,

You may think we’re at war with Islam, but you can’t drag the rest of us into your religious hatred.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race — out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.
__________
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

Unless, of course, you’re willing to say President George W. Bush is stupid or a liar…
Mark Noonan says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Not much on the actual subject - do none of you liberals actually want to discuss the subject? Or is everything to be cast as an anti-Bush polemic?
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I suppose it depends on what you want to view as “much on the subject”, Mark. So, quoting the President’s own words is now equivalent to an “anti-Bush polemic”? Interesting!
Freedom1 says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:16 am
“Unless, of course, you’re willing to say President George W. Bush is stupid or a liar…” DP

President Bush is dead wrong about Islam. I see you believe President Bush, though. Interesting….

Anyway, watch “Fitna”. Don’t watch “Fitna”. I posted it to give people the opportunity to evaluate it for themselves, because if you haven’t heard about it by now, you will.
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I offered President Bush’s words to contrast with your own. You named him as being dead wrong on the subject. That answered my question, thanks.
js says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:19 am
glory in stopping that?

absolutely Freedom1

absolutely
Freedom1 says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:21 am
You agree with President Bush, Diana. Interesting….

Agreed, JS. Agreed.
js says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:22 am
love the sinner, hate the sin, no?

the best cure for islam is to convert to christianity

seems like the brighterst and best of islam does just that

most muslims in islamic nations never get that choice though

christians are killed for speaking of it

yet the most success islam has in our nation is in the jails

strange how that works, isnt it?
Freedom1 says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:24 am
66. js | March 28th, 2008 at 12:22 am

Exactly right, JS.
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Mark,

Relative to your comment about the amount posted on the subject of the thread, I would offer Comments 58 as something for your consideration.
Freedom1 says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Diana Powe, the terrorists must just love ya! Shutting down free speech when they can’t.
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Don’t talk to me, Freedom1. Talk to Mark and explain to him how your comment had anything to do with his question, “Is there glory in war?”
Mark Noonan says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Diana,

Oh, I’m not about to try and weed out the off topic comments on this thread…but I had hoped to generate a discussion on war. I don’t think that I even so much as mentioned President Bush in the Battle Born commentary…nor, I think, did I mention Iraq or, indeed, any particular war…
Jeremiah says:
March 28th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Why We Fight …

I was fifteen when Grandfather died,
his twisted body vanquished by too many years,
his mind confused by too many diluted memories,
his spirit still as strong and indomitable
as the day he first killed another man
to protect the life he loved.

It was hard for me to see the war hero he had been
within the wasted remnants of a wispy old man,
his flesh sunken between fragile bones,
his smooth, soft skin bleached paler
than the sheets that wrapped him
like a premature burial shroud.

It was hard to see the war hero he had been
until Grandfather opened his rheumy eyes,
the blue as pale as a winter sky,
as hard and cold as tempered steel.
When he opened his eyes and looked into your soul,
only then could you see it. Then you would know.

Those eyes were a pool of profound strength,
with unwept tears of pain and death floating
just below their placid, unbroken surface,
like ocean debris trapped within swift currents
and forever forbidden to emerge,
forbidden to pollute the sea that was his life.

But, still, the soiled debris was a part of him.
Grandfather survived the German occupation of his land,
fought life and death struggles in an Underground
that would not, could not accept the domination of others.
And when it was over, when he had outlived the death,
he had moved to a new land, a land of new-found friends.

In America, Grandfather built a new life,
while never forgetting the lessons of the old.
His melodious French was replaced with broken English,
the rifles with shovels, the knives with hammers.
But nothing ever supplanted his implacable courage,
nothing ever usurped his enduring strength.

Grandfather was a warrior, but he was also a teacher.
I listened to his words, saw his examples,
learned from the stories and histories he shared.
He showed me that courage and strength aren’t independent qualities,
but rather are the inevitable results of abiding love.
“What you truly love,” he would say, “can never be surrendered.”

And Grandfather, more than most, loved Freedom.
I have since learned there are many who say it,
but few who really feel it.
And fewer still who understand it.
Grandfather once told me he never fought for Freedom.
He said, instead, he fought against domination.

We were sitting in the old wooden swing,
its paint as wrinkled and weathered
as the skin of my grandfather’s aged face,
the sound of the river flowing through his yard
a backdrop for a classroom
with neither desks nor chalk boards.

“A man can never take away your Freedom,” he told me.
“They can only take power and make you pay a higher price
when you choose to exercise it.
Hitler wanted to make that price a man’s death.
There is always a price to be paid for Freedom,
but when the price becomes too high, a man must fight.”

I remember he paused then, his irregular breath
like a clipped whistle as it wheezed past swollen nostrils.
I was used to his long lulls, a habit so many found irritating.
Grandfather was giving me time, I knew,
to ponder, to absorb, to believe.
And I knew, too, in knowing him, there would be more.

When he finally continued,
Grandfather’s voice was almost a whisper.
“It works both ways,” he said, leaning closer,
his minty breath an envelope around my face.
“A man can never take away your freedom,
and a man never grant it either.”

Grandfather’s voice had many tones within it,
and I had learned them all through the years.
“The laws of this country are good ones, mostly,”
he said in a reverent tone, an awed tone
that spoke of important lessons
to be learned.

“But you must always remember that its Constitution,
and all the laws Congress has passed since then,
don’t give you one bit more Freedom
than you already have.
Laws are made by men. Laws change.
Your Freedom is part of you. It’s forever.”

I remember nodding my understanding,
and I remember Grandfather’s hand falling to my shoulder.
He squeezed briefly, and I can only assume he was pleased.
It would be another two years
before he would lay in a death bed of virgin white,
and another two decades before I would really understand his words.

The Freedoms written within our laws are always conditional.
Freedom of the Press is amended by libel statutes,
and Search and Seizure laws are cast aside for Probable Cause.
All the laws, all the guarantees,
exist only at the whim of the courts and Due Process.
Grandfather understood.

Any government based on unconditional Freedom
would necessarily be a government of unconditional anarchy.
Our laws don’t grant people Freedom.
Our laws only set the price that must be paid
when a citizen chooses to exercise our Freedom.
But the Freedom comes from within.

Grandfather was not a religious man, but he was a Godly man.
And I think he knew.
Our Creator gave us not only our existence,
but he granted us Free Will,
that we might choose between good and evil.
And that power of choice is what Freedom is really all about.

There will always be a price to pay for Freedom.
The price is set by the hand of man, by the laws we make.
When we are wise and good, the price is one we can bear.
And when we are neither wise nor good,
there will always be men like Grandfather,
with the courage and strength to fight for what they love.

————————————————————

Thank God Almighty for our brave men and women in uniform, who seek no glory, but unselfishly sacrifice their time and talent for those who are less fortunate!

–Jeremiah–
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Kahn,

I was just asking what your source was. I don’t know if the answer is right or wrong. I do know, however, that Mark has specifically discounted The Military Times for their polling.
What? says:
March 28th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Mark,
The current war and the politics surrounding it are on topic if only as an example that war often not glorious.
If this is a post on the glory of war, it is fair we use the Iraq war as evidence.

Also, you are getting hammered over at Sadly, No! for this comment.
What? says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Almiranta writes:
“Fighting to defend one’s country is noble.
Fighting to bring or defend freedom is noble.
Fighting protect ones’ rights is noble.”

Hmm, somehow I don’t think many people see what we are doing right now qualifies as accomplishing any of these things.
Your probelm is that you take these as absolute truths. If we fight we are defending our freedoms and rights. This is not always the case.

Almiranta, I am going to blow your mind here. Hold on to something. Sometimes, sometimes the United States can do things that are wrong. I’ll let that concept sink in.
Kahn says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Well I didn’t discount the military times poll and that was my source.

That was a minor point in my post. You really DON’T get it do you?

“What?” Name just war.
Mark Noonan says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:34 am
what,

I’m supposed to care what people at “Sadly No” are saying?

Anyways…

When a man dies suddenly at a young age (doesn’t matter how - its just that he’s dead long before his expected end), do we say such things as, “ah, that’s terrible - he could have become a ruthless corporate vulture who clawed his way to the top, divorced his wife of 10 years, married a young floozy and piled up money as if his life depended on it”? No, we don’t - we’re saddened when such people die because of what they could have done for others, had they lived. And for those who know the deceased, there is the additional sadness of missing a dear friend/loved one. But the dead man, in any case, is dead - for good or ill, his story is told.

Once upon a time, Rupert Brooke wrote this - a poem I more and more understand as time goes on:

Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour,
And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping,
With hand made sure, clear eye, and sharpened power,
To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,
Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary,
Leave the sick hearts that honour could not move,
And half-men, and their dirty songs and dreary,
And all the little emptiness of love!

Oh! we, who have known shame, we have found release there,
Where there’s no ill, no grief, but sleep has mending,
Naught broken save this body, lost but breath;
Nothing to shake the laughing heart’s long peace there
But only agony, and that has ending;
And the worst friend and enemy is but Death.

Brooke, a young and fast rising British poet at the start of the First World War, was positively delighted with the prospect of going to war - not because he wanted to kill people; not because he wanted to be killed…but because it gave him, and his generation, a chance to shake off narrow self interest and become absorbed in a common, noble cause where self-sacrifice was the order of the day. When Brooke died during the war (sadly not in battle against the enemy, but of a contracted illness while serving in the military), the loss wasn’t just a miserable, sad loss - a useless sacrifice in war. No, the loss was that the world lost a great poet, and that his friends (who were many) were shorn of his company. But for Brooke, he died nobly in a grand cause - he died, as it were, in glory. To say there is no glory in war is to insult the memory of such as Rupert Brooke, and all those other fine, brave young men who gladly lost their lives in the service of others.

You, and the rest of the lefty commenters, are too narrowly focused and, I regret to add, too lacking in love and happiness to grasp what I am saying. I’m not, by the way, claiming that you will certainly agree with me, but if you allow a little love into your heart, you will understand what I’m saying, which would go a long way towards breaking down the barriers between us. Unfortunately, I know you all too well in such matters - I can feel the seething anger, hatred and resentment you and others bring to this discussion…exemplified by your insistence that the liberation in Iraq is central, and your foolish implication that because you don’t like President Bush and the war, there cannot be glory in the current war.

I’m not talking about Iraq - I’m not speaking of any particular war; I’m answering the question by saying, “yes, there is glory in war”. I’m not saying that war is good; that innocent people being caught in the crossfire is good; that the evil men do when caught up in the heat of battle is good…I’m merely saying that there is glory in war. McCain, a fine man and a grand hero, is wrong on this score - understandably wrong as he got the butt end of barbaric squalor for five years…but because the barbarians siezed him and did horrible things to him, that doesn’t mean there isn’t glory in war…or that the noble actions of brave men and women cannot counter-balance the sordid aspects of war, and raise the event from the horrible to the sublime.

Those who serve are really serving - not the service which most of us do; the cost-free service of civil life. No, they are really serving - they are being our servants which, as Our Lord demonstrated on the night before his crucifixion, means getting down and dirty and doing the tasks that most people won’t do. If one can’t see the nobility in the person who dons a uniform and takes up arms for others, nor the glory in the fact that some of these fine young men and women end up dying in their service…well, then I don’t really know what to say to such a person.
Jeremiah says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Sometimes, sometimes the United States can do things that are wrong.

What?

Yes, sometimes, like when they choose their Leader … Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton for examples.

George W. Bush on the other hand, was a ‘God send’, the reason he became President wasn’t because of his dad either, as you Libs like to assume most of the time….No, I think the people were tired of the betrayals by Democrats in times past. Not only that, I honestly believe that it was God’s will that it turn out that way, simply for the threat that was looming, became reality, and that we are now very much aware of, at least those of us who acknowledge the threat. It might seem odd that way, I dunno … however, God’s eye is ever watchful of His people, and the only reason He delivers America another day is only because of those people who will take the time to acknowledge Him in their lives, and how critical it is for our sole reliance upon Him and Him alone.

I trust that God has entrusted to George W. Bush what He’s entrusted any one of us sharing our commentary here together, provided we’re willing to acknowledge it, which is to say, that we are called to freedom, and that that freedom is only possible through God’s One and Only Son Jesus Christ who died on the Cross at Calvary to bear our sins and be set free from the bondages of sin thereof … in the same manner, we should be willing to fight to give our all for the freedom of others who are not so fortunate. The correlation would be thusly - Christ willingly gave His life once for others - in the same way, a Soldier dies for others as well. Christ came to destroy the power of sin and give us victory over it, and so, a Soldier goes to destroy the stronghold of the oppressors and give the oppressed the freedom to gain power over the oppressors.

Freedom’s worth, is worth only as much as the individual claiming it - to the one who believes, it’s worth his all for his fellow man.

That’s the glory of it.

If there’s a mistake in the United States in what we’ve done to help the Iraqi people? Then you’ll have to square that with the Iraqi who now enjoys a life of freedom from his/her former situation!

–Jeremiah–
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Mark,

I’ve never been in combat in the military sense which is the topic here. However, I have been in hand-to-hand armed struggle while wearing a police uniform and would have considered it a worthy thing had I gone down in the line of duty. In fact, there are those who post here who have expressed animus towards me because of that fact.

However, your analysis here could just as easily apply to every German who died in the trenches on the same day that Rupert Brooke died. Germany was the aggressor. However, it would be the height of naiveness to claim that every young German man who volunteered during the First World War thought he was doing something immoral. Have you ever read All Quiet On The Western Front? Did Hitler see the “glory” of the First World War while he was serving?
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Jeremiah,

You’re right, the Iraqis now have the freedom to march in protests and burn American flags:

BAGHDAD - In a sign of growing rage against the Iraqi and US governments, tens of thousands of Shi’ites marched in their strongholds across Baghdad yesterday to protest a crackdown on Shi’ite militiamen that has led to more than 125 deaths.

The government announced a curfew across the capital until Sunday in an attempt to quell violence, which has spread to several cities since the offensive began Tuesday in the southern city of Basra.

Loyalists of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rejected US and Iraqi assertions that the Basra operation was aimed at rogue militiamen, and insisted it was targeting Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia. A statement released late yesterday by Sadr’s political office said the clergyman remained committed to a cease-fire that Sadr imposed on his militia last August.
__________
Source: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/03/28/shiites_in_baghdad_protest_crackdown/
Mark Noonan says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Diana,

In as much as any particular German soldier fought because he genuinely thought it was the just cause and who subliminated himself to the service of others, then he was doing a noble thing - and thus covered himself in glory. A German soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades is just as magnifient as an American soldier doing the same. Of course, it wasn’t exactly like that - German soldiers, even in the First World War, burned villages, slaughtered non-combatants and looted enemy property. They did it under orders, to be sure, but that is no excuse - just as each of them knew full well, from Kaiser to lowest Fritz, that they wouldn’t want their own homes burned, their own families shot, their own property looted, so they knew that they shouldn’t have done that to others, orders or no.

But, still, there could be nobility on the German side, and there was, at times - even in the horrors of the Second World War, when Germans mostly acted like beasts in human form, there was some nobility - the only German soldiers who were unafraid to display their war service were Afrika Corps veterans…because under Rommel in the desert, they did no ignoble things, and they fought hard and well and treated their enemies with chivalrous respect.

On the whole, though, the greater chance for nobility and glory in both World Wars was on the allied side - fighting as they were for liberty put them at a distinct advantage from the get go. But, even so, there were ignoble deeds on the allied side in both wars, as well. War, as has been pointed out often, can be a very nasty business…but my contention is that there is still glory in war. Furthermore, we must acknowledge and joyfully celebrate this glory - we must always pull out of the nettle, adversity, the flower of joy. To not do this is to put all human activity into a negative cesspit.
SEW says:
March 28th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Scary, very scary. DP serving and protecting?, in armed combat on our streets!
js says:
March 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
if freedom was such an ignoble cause, then slavery itself would be its opposite
js says:
March 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
the german based thier valor on racial superiority

the aryan thesis is a well known cult today, yet, both great wars were to put down the beliefs that most of germany fought for

if we base our premise for peace, justice and freedom on a false entitlement (while we uphold/ignore and/or slavery/enslave our fellow man), then those words stand for naught but to inflame a lie to glory instead of rightousness

how did that go…..the greatest among us are selfless servants
extramedium says:
March 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Glory: (from Meriam-Webster dictionary)

1 a: praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent : renown b: worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving

The question itself is ambiguous enough stir endless debate (and of course, endless ego battles on this blog) - Is There Glory in War?

Glory should always be accorded to the brave men who fight and die in wars. War itself, however, is always a failure and a tragedy. When societies of men resort to killing one another to settle their differences, humanity has simply failed.

Wars might be just, or necessary - but glorious? Never.
DM says:
March 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
SEW,

There is much that Diana writes that I do not agree with; however her service in uniform is nothing that should be made fun of. We should all be thankful for anyone who upheld their duty while in the service of the public, especially those who are in harms way.
DM says:
March 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
” how did that go…..the greatest among us are selfless servants”

Well said js.
SEW says:
March 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
DM, It is not her service I am making fun of. It is her service with her mindset that I wonder about, not make fun of. Scary, very scary. Highly biased, toting a gun. I am thankful for anyone that upholds their duty but wearing a uniform does not guarantee that. That is why psychological evaluations are done–it can be a huge problem. Her psych profile seems quite obvious.
Magnum Serpentine says:
March 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Sew.

So its ok for republicans to be in the Army and be veterans, but its not ok for Democrats to be in the Army and be decorated Veterans?

Give me a break.
SEW says:
March 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“So its ok for republicans to be in the Army and be veterans, but its not ok for Democrats to be in the Army and be decorated Veterans?

Give me a break.” MS

You are delusional. Where did I state that?
JD says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
No, there is no glory in war.
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
DM, It is not her service I am making fun of. It is her service with her mindset that I wonder about, not make fun of. Scary, very scary. Highly biased, toting a gun. I am thankful for anyone that upholds their duty but wearing a uniform does not guarantee that. That is why psychological evaluations are done–it can be a huge problem. Her psych profile seems quite obvious.

Oh, “highly biased”. So, according to SEW, who apparently can discern “psych profiles” via reading comments on blogs (remarkable, SEW, what kind of vending machine did you get your PhD in psychology from?) it seems that only conservatives aren’t “highly biased” and “scary”. Now all you have to do is cite any actual examples of my being “highly biased” in the performance of my duties as a Richardson police officer and you’ll have something. You are a stitch, SEW!
Jay Gaultieri says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Can there be glory in war? Yes. If the caveat is can there be glory in THIS war then the matter is moot. To quote a line from the HBO TV series “The Wire”: “Once you’re in a war, you’re in it. If it’s a lie, then we fight on that lie.” Back in 2003 I posted on the old Yahoo! message boards that this war might actually take four years and cost $500 billion dollars and 1500 American lives. Here we are five years later with 4000+ and counting American dead and the financial cost soaring towards a trillion borrowed from the Chinese with no end in sight.

As President Bush spoke yesterday of victory Muqtada Al Sadr’s Iranian-backed Al Mehdi Army patroled the city of Basra armed with rifles and rocket launchers. We seem to all forget Iraq was supposed to be low-hanging fruit, a place to establish a home base in order to attack the real prize, Iran.

Five years on Iran is taking that fight to American troops through the proxy of the Iranian-born Muqtada Al Sadr, a man who should have been arrested or sent back to Iran years ago. A whole new enemy has been created, and he may well be the most powerful man in Iraq right now. It ensures this war with Iraq–and Iran— will drag on for a good long time to come. Proponents of this war—an aging, increasingly rural-based, and perpetually shrinking minority— offer nothing but more of the same strategy that caused the rise of Muqtada Al Sadr.

All of that means that more American soldiers will be fed into the meat grinder and many more billions of US taxpayer dollars will disappear into a blackhole of unaccountability with no end in sight.

Is that glorious?

It doesn’t really matter does it?
Dennis says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
How exactly like Mark, and Jeremiah as well, to drag Jesus Christ into their defense of war. Particularly the war in Iraq, which has put an end to religious freedom there forever, and caused virtually all Christians to flee the new Islamic order enabled by the Bush administration. The few Christians to poor to flee Iraq are truly in a more wretched state than they ever were under Saddam, who for all his wickedness did not tolerate religious persecution and was known to think well of Christians.

There is no doubt that some wars are just and must be fought. But because this is so, does not ennoble war as a concept or lend an iota of glory to the war we are fighting now in Iraq. What we are fighting now is a desperate battle to extract some saving grace from the colossal blunder of the Bush administration’s ignorant, arrogant and unilateral decision to remake the world according to its own whim.

Now we are pouring billions of dollars a week into trying to stop the combustion of the volatile forces Mr. Bush unleashed by removing Saddam Hussein from power. Saddam was bad; what we have now is worse.

And not to be gratuitously slamming Mr. Bush here, Mark, but all this goes to your question of whether there is glory in war. This is just like asking “Is there glory in fire?” Clearly Mr. Bush believed so, just the way an adolescent boy playing with matches glorifies fire.

Now the boy has set fire to a city block; firefighters are dying, not to mention all those people burned to death and out of their homes. And we are not going to hold the delinquent responsible who did this?

The war has cost Mr. Bush nothing personally - it is other people’s children being sent into harm’s way, and even stranger people over there whose security, homes and human bodies have been blown to pieces - first by American shock and awe; now by the insurgent war we have instigated in their midst.

How very like you, Mark the “conservative,” to altogether reject accountablity, to justify your own brand of villainy and by your attempted sophistry to tuck it under the cozy blanket of Christian morality.
SEW says:
March 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“You are a stitch, SEW!” DP

You’re no fun anymore. It used to be so easy to pull your chain.
kimberly4victory says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Since Dennis gives no suggestions on how to help the Iraqi Christians, I thought I would post information about a proposal that might be a viable solution.

The proposal is to create an autonomous region in northern Iraq called the Nineveh Plains where Christians and other persecuted minorities can practice their faith, speak and teach their language, and work without fear of persecution.

The Nineveh Plains is the ancestral homeland of Assyrian Christians – the largest Christian group in Iraq – and is the area where thousands of Christians from the cities have resettled to escape persecution.

Although, Christians and other persecuted minorities might face the same difficulties Israel faces today, it sounds like a good step in the right direction.

Anyone?
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Deleted - off topic.
kimberly4victory says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Really? I thought that was what blogs were for … to debate issues, to talk about possible solutions, etc. Any comment on the proposal or do you just want to beatch and moan?
Diana Powe says:
March 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Well, I’m aware that various people with far more knowledge than I have proposed redrawing the map of the Middle East. Other than that, I haven’t enough knowledge to say.
Dennis says:
March 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Kimberly, it is doubtful Christians in Iraq could face the same difficulties as Israel, whose problems arise from their aggressive ethnic cleansing of nearly a million indigenous people - but that is quite another subject.

I am in favor finding a home for Iraqi Christians, but Western powers have been trying to impose “solutions” on Iraq for a very long time, with one blunder following another. The scenario you suggest is news to me; it is difficult to know whether it is merely another pretext for a longer occupation.

It also carries with it echoes of past ethnic cleansings with forced relocations, refugee camps, dismal living conditions and a permanent underclass. To create such a “solution” would be entirely consistent with the Bush admin’s history of crisis management.
majoriot says:
March 30th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Honor, commitment, sacrifice, duty, loyalty…

Kahn…are these attributes only applicable to those who fight wars?
I see it every day in my family life, and in the struggle of myself and others to end the practice of the methods you, and others like you, would employ.

Where Defeat Is Not An Option

About This Site

Join Our Blogroll

Contact Us

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

To Post Comments...

Archives

Check Out

Tags

Is There Glory in War?

by Mark Noonan on March 27th, 2008 at 01:22pm

92 Responses to “Is There Glory in War?”

RSS Feed

Facebook

Twitter

Prime Sponsor

Advertisements

Blogroll

Meta