For Liberals, “Patriot” Equals “Warmonger”
April 5th, 2008 at 05:07pm Mark Noonan
It doesn’t matter that he suffered greatly in war for our nation; it doesn’t matter that he, like most veterans of combat, detests war…because he’s a Republican and is determined, like a good patriot, to win the war, he’s a “warmonger” for the left:
Radio talk show star Ed Schultz warmed up the crowd, attacking Sen. John McCain as “a warmonger,” before Obama arrived in the room.
Obama thanked Schultz, saying he was the “voice of progressive radio,” and someone “who knows a little bit about sports.”
Schultz played football at Moorhead State University and was a sports broadcaster in Fargo for years.
But the Schultz “warmonger” comment and Obama’s respone drew criticism from McCain’s camp.
“Senator Obama has repeatedly said that words matter,” said McCain spokesman Jeff Sadosky Friday night. “They do, and for him to stand on stage and thank someone who just minutes before used hate-filled and inflamatory language to describe John McCain, someone who has served his nation in and out of uniform for over 30 years, shows Obama’s true colors, liberal Chicago-style politics as usual. Americans want more, they deserve better.”
Yep, he sure is a voice of progressive radio - and has Matt noted below, “progressive” is becoming interchangable with “vile”.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Kook Left, Republicans
46 Comments
1. Christian Wright | April 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
And how do you interpret McCain’s rendition of the Beach Boy’s “Barbara Ann”?
“Bomb, Bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran,” is a joke only a warmonger could make.
Any person that can make a joke about bombing a country is not fit to lead one.
2. Aaron | April 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
You guys are upset with calling McCain a “warmonger”? Well, McCain does appear to be itching to go to war with Iran, joked about bombing Iran to the tune of a Beach Boys song, and did in fact say it was OK with him if we occupied Iraq for 100 years (there are youtube videos of him doing all these things, so don’t even try to deny it).
Because McCain served in Vietnam and was a POW, you are all aghast that anyone should call him a “warmonger” or question his patriotism. And yet, you same dingdongs gleefully cheered sliming John Kerry, a decorated American veteran of the same war, as having killed innocent boys in cold blood, as having lied to get his medals, and of being someone who hates America.
Which of these attacks was a despicable, cowardly, and unproven slanderous smear against a decorated veteran… and which is actually grounded in facts as evidenced by recent videos?
I report, you decide.
3. Freedom1 | April 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
This is the evil we are facing in this war. This is why the PATRIOT JOHN MCCAIN wants to WIN the WAR….
British Muslims In Airliner Terror Plot ‘Talked Of Taking Families On Suicide Missions’ -Daily Mail
4. jerry | April 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Look at his record, he critizied Clinton for not putting ground troops in Kosovo. Also, his conflation of Al Qaeda with Iran four seperate times seems a move by McCain to gin up support for his desire to Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.
5. SEW | April 5th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
And yet, you same dingdongs gleefully cheered sliming John Kerry, a decorated American veteran of the same war, as having killed innocent boys in cold blood, as having lied to get his medals, and of being someone who hates America.
Which of these attacks was a despicable, cowardly, and unproven slanderous smear against a decorated veteran? and which is actually grounded in facts as evidenced by recent videos?
Aaron
And here is Francois’ testimony. You decide.
“They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”
6. kimberly4victory | April 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I agree with John McCain …
“Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends,” McCain said. “My response is, Lighten up and get a life.”
The AP article continues, “Asked if his joke was insensitive, McCain said: ‘Insensitive to what? The Iranians?’”
7. LiberalNitemare | April 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
A decorated American veteran that …
lied about many details of his service (christmas in cambodia anyone?)
illegally met and negotiated with the enemy while on active duty. (As an officer)
falsely accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes.
probably recieved a dishonerable discharge for the above actions. Yet continues to claim an honerable discharge. (has never actually lived up to his promise to release the details of his discharge).
claimed he threw his medals back at the country that granted them for his own political gain.
I dont think you can say that Jphn McCain and John Kerry are exactly the same sort of decorated american veteran - though Im sure those of you on the left will forever fail to see the difference.
8. Dennis | April 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
SEW, do you imagine those to be just lies made up to tell a credulous Congress?
I’ve personally known at least one Viet vet who saw (and probably made) a necklace of human ears and took pride in what he did to “gooks”. We all know about Agent Orange and if anyone doubts the rest, we have not just My Lai but Abu Ghraib to help fill in the blanks.
Even Rumsfeld said the unreleased photos and videos from Abu Ghraib were shocking to the conscience - far worse than the ones that did get released. People who have viewed them describe rape of adolescent boys by Iraqi guards under supervision of American troops who took the videos, among other delicacies.
If the Iraq vets who have such scenes seared into their memories ever open their mouths to say “we were wrong,” no doubt they’ll be demonized by the far right just as Kerry was for his testimony.
It’s people who think we can do no wrong who are most dangerous to the moral future of America.
9. Dennis | April 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
10. Mark Noonan | April 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Dennis,
Yes, that is precisely what they were - and your one friend is probably lying to you…some people really like attention, and are sometimes willing to do quite amazing things to get it.
11. Mark Noonan | April 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Dennis,
And that is why Buchanan isn’t a member of our party…Buchanan is one of those unfortunate Catholics who wishes to return to pre-Vatican II, and an idealised version of isolationist America in the late 1930’s….
12. John Mccain » For L&hellip | April 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
[...] The Greenline wrote an interesting post today on For Liberals, âPatriotâ Equals âWarmongerâHere’s a quick excerptRadio talk show star Ed Schultz warmed up the crowd, attacking Sen. John McCain as “a warmonger,” before Obama arrived in the room. [...]
13. Dennis | April 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
You are a very confused guy, Mark. For someone who talks so much about the moral depravity abroad in the land you hold a curiously sanitized vision of war, particularly of how America behaves therein. War is evolution in reverse - it makes animals of men, and when that happens it doesn’t really matter whose side you’re on. It’s a madness nobody escapes, as My Lai, Abu Ghraib and countless other nameless incidents aptly illustrate.
And funny how you feel qualified to psychoanalyze someone from a scrap of information. The person I knew decades ago who told me those things about his time in Vietnam probably would have scared the bejabbers out of you. He still had snakes crawling around inside his head and I never felt safe around him. And he was just one of many like that.
As for Buchanan, I hold no brief either for or against him but at least he’s intellectually consistent. He stays outside the GOP not because you won’t have him, but because he won’t have you or any part of your utopian ideology.
14. Mark Noonan | April 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Dennis,
Never occured to you that your friend was suffering from mental defect and, perhaps, wasn’t a good conduit for truth?
At any rate, I know my military history - and the actions our troops in Vietnam were accused of are the actions of ill-disciplined troops; of a military rabble. Now, if our army in Vietnam had been a military rabble, then the North Vietnamese would have been able to boast of at least one actual, stand up battlefield victory against our army. There is not one such incident - each time there was a fight, the enemy found our military organization able to respond rapidly and with men who would both go swiftly into battle as well as be able to fight vigorously. People who make necklaces of ears don’t fight well - savages like that don’t train in the use of their weapons, and don’t stand shoulder to shoulder with their comrades when crisis erupts.
Given what we know of our army, there couldn’t have been more than one or two men who did inhuman acts, if there were any at all - and in any grouping of millions of men (as there was, all told, in our military in Vietnam), there are bound to be some bad apples - but for you - or John Kerry - to extrapolate from a few crazies the tenor of the whole organization is downright foolish - and slanderous, into the bargain.
You’ve picked up a anti-war/Hollywood view of war and what it does - and its high time you knocked some of that nonsense out of your head. I recommend, as a starter, Carnage and Culture.
15. SEW | April 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“And funny how you feel qualified to psychoanalyze someone from a scrap of information. The person I knew decades ago who told me those things about his time in Vietnam probably would have scared the bejabbers out of you. He still had snakes crawling around inside his head and I never felt safe around him. And he was just one of many like that.” Dennis
Dennis, maybe you qualify for the next Democrat presidential candidate?
16. Arctic Fox | April 5th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I just want to point out something about John McCain that has largely gone unasked.
Republicans are quick to jump to his defense on this blog and elsewhere that his “in Iraq for 100 years” statement has been blown out of all proportion, and your reason for that is - as I understand it; correct me if I’m wrong - that he quantified the statement with the addition “as long as no Americans continue to be hurt or killed.”
So I’d like to ask, what the hell does he expect to happen to soldiers in a war zone? And, most important of all, if his caveat is that no Americans are hurt or killed, should that continue to happen (remember 38 more died during the month of March) does this mean that he would be prepared to reconsider and withdraw, or is that caveat simply hot air?
What happens, Mr McCain, if troops left in Iraq DO continue to get hurt, and DO continue to lose their lives? If you’re still prepared to put them in harms way for another hundred (or whatever number) years just because you don’t want to lose face by being called defeatist by bringing the troops home “before the job (remind me what the current excuse for ‘the job’ is?) is done”
Then you’re a warmonger.
17. JPL | April 5th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
“SEW, do you imagine those to be just lies made up to tell a credulous Congress?”
Duh, what are you, stupid? Of course Kerry lied to Congress. It was obvious at the time, and it’s even more obvious now. Why else would Kerry refuse to sign Form 180 or release his personal war diary?
18. SEW | April 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Very good Fox. We hope you far left cut and run cultist Obamamaniacs push McCain as a warmonger! At the Denver convention, hopefully Jimmy Carter will have his buddy Hugo Chavez as a guest this year along with Michael Moore.
That’s the ticket. Obama 08. Cut and Run.
Reminds me of the 04 platform, “Reporting for Duty” John Francois.
LOL!
19. Aaron | April 6th, 2008 at 12:32 am
LiberalNitemare
And you have not the tiniest shred of evidence for even a single one of these smears against a combat veteran. Just parroting shit you heard on wingnut radio or read on some pinhead’s blog.
So, you know for a fact that Kerry received a dishonorable discharge, and in the same breath claim that he hasn’t released his records? If the latter is true, how can you possibly know the former?
By the way, he authorized the Navy to release his full military and medical records almost 2 years ago. It wasn’t he who released his records - it was the Navy. So are you now going to call the entire Navy liars too?
Illegally met and negotiated with the enemy? Pure bullshit. Show me where this is officially documented, testified to, or reported by an actual journalist. One more piece of shit you copied from some jackass blog.
You are so full of horse poop on all of this. It is despicable that you would smear this crap on a combat vet who by all accounts served this country honorably and bravely. And now you feign outrage because someone would say that McCain is a warmonger? McCain has said some things in recent months/years that give one pause. So unlike the shit about Kerry you pulled straight out of your ass, there is actual evidence that McCain is indeed chomping at the bit to start a new war.
20. majoriot | April 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I prefer the term tank-hugger.
21. What? | April 6th, 2008 at 1:54 am
This from a man who has never seen combat:
“At any rate, I know my military history - and the actions our troops in Vietnam were accused of are the actions of ill-disciplined troops; of a military rabble. Now, if our army in Vietnam had been a military rabble, then the North Vietnamese would have been able to boast of at least one actual, stand up battlefield victory against our army. There is not one such incident - each time there was a fight, the enemy found our military organization able to respond rapidly and with men who would both go swiftly into battle as well as be able to fight vigorously. People who make necklaces of ears don’t fight well - savages like that don’t train in the use of their weapons, and don’t stand shoulder to shoulder with their comrades when crisis erupts.
Mark, has it ever occured to you that the books you read are not the best conduits of truth either, seeing as they are written by people who cling to your worldview and creepy facinsation with war.
The author of the book you cited recently defended Rumsfeld’s light footprint strategy. McCain, the current DoD, the Administration, and the military commanders have all pretty much indicated Rumsfeld blew it from the outset. Should you be trusting this guy? He has yet to admit that Rumsfeld did not see the insurgency coming. Or that Rummy had a puppet President waiting in the wings in Chalibi.
He also massages the facts:
http://main.pajamasmedia.com/xpress/victordavishanson/2006/11/08/rumsfeld_webband_bbeing_carefu.php
That we removed the Taliban from power does not mean we defeated them. If that were the case why are we still battling them. The Russians never had to remove them from power. They fought them as we are now.
Removing Saddam was hardly a feat considering our technologically superior military.
Mark, I suggest you watch “Bush’s War” to get another view point that does not track your own preconceived views.
22. Joe | April 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Wasn’t it just about a month or so back when someone “warming up the crowd” at a McCain rally said something about Obama or something? McCain denounced it and everyone said how good it was that McCain said he didn’t agree with him and such. He was a stand up guy for doing that, right?
So now someone says something bad about McCain at an Obama rally. Obama says he doesn’t agree with it and denounced it.
If you are going to claim all liberals think McCain is a warmonger, then I guess it can also be said that all conservatives think Obama is a racist.
What the hell ever happened to actual issues? This “gotcha” politicals is such crap.
So why is this a story at all?
23. kimberly4victory | April 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Joe: I believe this post came out before Obama made his statement. And, I think it’s great that he publically denounced it.
24. Almiranta | April 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Aaron, while you frantically leap to Kerry’s defense, and claim that there is no “proof” of the comments made about him, you appear totally ignornat (gee, THERE’s a surprise!!) of the vast body of proof that he was a liar.
You and your kind sneer at the term “swiftboating” yet it really meant, in the original context, the testimony of live witnesses to the invents mischaracterized by Kerry in his relentless self-promotion. Yeah, eyewitness accounts, which contradicted his stories—and many of these witnesses really disliked Bush and hated the thought of him becoming president, yet felt they had to speak up about the stream of lies coming from Kerry.
And these guys knew Kerry, knew he was mean as a rattlesnake, knew he had boatloads of money, knew he had a history of sueing people who might reveal his nasty history—yet they took that chance. Why? Because the best defense against charges of libel/slander is the truth, and they knew he could not only not prevail in such a suit, they knew he would not chance having to go into court and deal with the legal requirements, such as discovery and sworn testimony.
His honorable discharge came about, if memory serves me, in March of 2000. Long after he left the Navy, long after he lied under oath to Congress about atrocities he said he and his Navy buddies committed, long after he illegally traveled to North Viet Nam (while still a Navy officer) to conspire with the enemy—but after the amnesty on Viet Nam War deserters and traitors. Is it wrong to think he first got a dishonorable, or at least less than honorable discharge? He promised to release those records—yet he did not.
Yes, he did authorize the Navy to release his records, and the Navy did—TO KERRY, the only person they could legally release them to. And HE released eight or nine of the hundred or so pages to a select group of journalists—nothing about his original discharge in there, fella. Ball’s in his court on that one.
And BTW, Kerry himself admitted to fudging the details of a couple of his medals, and BTW, the medals he claimed he threw over the White House fence are hanging in his office. As per usual, he tried to have it both ways—war hero and war objector, medal-thrower and medal-bragger, Navy officer and illegal meeter with the enemy….
And, you moron, Kerry ADMIITTED to traveling to North Viet Nam—and his photo is in a NVN war musuem as a Hero Of North Viet Nam. OK, so in his account he did not admit to “conspiring” or “negotiating”–but he MET with them, on two separate trips.
You sneer “Show me where this is officially documented, testified to, or reported by an actual journalist.” Well, I guess I can understand why one would be hesitant to believe KERRY’s word on this. Maybe a “journalist” like Dan Blather would be more believable to you. And you go on to indulge in even more typical Lib intellectual discourse: ” One more piece of shit you copied from some jackass blog.”
You know, Aaron, all of this has been fully covered in all of the media, many times over, with quotes from Kerry and his book, with video, with military records, with testimony from eyewitnesses. But it seems so much easier for people like you to just start to reach around behind you and pull out your ammunition, like the primates at the zoo, and start hurling what you find at anyone who is not just like you.
What a guy.
You really need to try harder to keep up—guess that knee-jerk thing slows you down, eh?
While you’re trying to find some facts to back up your passionate defense of the man, take a look at the cover of his book—if you can find it, as he threatened to sue the publisher if it was ever re-released. It has a charming picture on the front, of a few scraggly-looking guys imitating the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima—but the American flag is upside down.
Such a hero to the nation, our Kerry-boy. No wonder you love him so.
25. kimberly4victory | April 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Great post, Almiranta. You’d best keep that one in your files as it appears Kerry plans on running again in 2012.
Arctic: There was an excellent article by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post on the “100 years” quote by McCain:
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted — “Make it a hundred” — then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: “We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.” Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: “That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: “It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world.”
There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous “presence” McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I’ve yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.
Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for the vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.
The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama’s leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (an Iraq war critic) suggested in an interview that “we’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right.” (Meaning, if we win.)
Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.
As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, “This is the way great powers operate.” One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point — it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.
26. FmrMarine | April 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Ill say it!!!!
kerry is a LIAR, COWARD, TRAITOR!!
>>>>gleefully cheered sliming John Kerry, a decorated American veteran of the same war, as having killed innocent boys in cold blood, as having lied to get his medals, and of being someone who hates America.<<<<
all the above is true, he should be a convicted felon instead of a US Senator.
Only as a donk in America!!
27. FmrMarine | April 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
28. FmrMarine | April 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html
29. SEW | April 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“While you’re trying to find some facts to back up your passionate defense of the man, take a look at the cover of his book—if you can find it, as he threatened to sue the publisher if it was ever re-released. It has a charming picture on the front, of a few scraggly-looking guys imitating the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima—but the American flag is upside down.” Almiranta
http://junkyardblog.transfinitum.net/archives/2004/01/mocking-iwo-jim-1.php
30. Casper | April 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Interesting how the main defense of McCain is to attack Kerry who isn’t running this year. Talk about off topic.
To be honest, McCain reminds me a lot of Kerry. Both Vietnam vets, both married rich, attractive women who have helped in there political careers, both who have changed positions a lot.
In fact my biggest problem with McCain right now, is that I really don’t know where he stands on a lot of issues. He was against tax cuts until he was for them. He was against torture until he was for it. He was against right wing radical preachers until he was looking for their endorsements. Who knows where he will be next week.
By the way, I am not a Kerry supporter.
31. Mark Noonan | April 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
what,
Does it occur to you that if my views jibe well with a renowned classicist and military historian that there just might be something to what I say? At any rate, if Hanson is not your cup of tea, then try Lynn Montross’ War Through the Ages; Barbara Tuchman’s Stillwell: The American Experience in China; JFC Fuller’s A Military History of the Western World; Robert Leckie ’s The Wars of America; B H Liddel-Hart’s History of the Second World War; Winston Churchill’s The World Crisis - certainly amongst that august company you can find someone who is not a charter member of the PNAC-NeoCon cabal.
You err when you have an attitude that war is inherently repellant, and that the study of it - other than as an indictment - indicates a warped worldview. Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto - you are human, and thus nothing human is alien to you, if you have any wisdom at all.
War, for whatever reason, is something your fellow human beings engage in. Unless you can figure out a sure-fire way to forever end all wars, it is incumbant upon you to take some time to know this subject - and not just in a “war is bad” sense; we all know that…what you need to know, additionally, is the how and why of it all. You’ll need to do this, at any rate, if your opinions about war are to be other than a hodge-podge of ill-informed prejudice.
32. Mark Noonan | April 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Casper,
It was lefty Aaron who brought up Kerry, first - it is the left which uses Kerry as a means of justifying attacks on McCain.
33. What? | April 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Mark,
First off, I realize war is something that humans will always engage in. However, I find your belief in its glory disturbing. It is your inherant belief in its glory that drives us to fight wars that are unnessary. It is one thing to study war, it is another thing to romantisize it.
Second, studying war is not something I oppose as long as you come at it with an open mind. Hansen does not do this. He is picking and choosing conflicts to suit his theory. Plus, given his statements concerning our current war, I simply cannot trust him. He is working backwards. Premise before facts is always a bad route to take unless you are a lawyer.
I also have a problem with going back to Roman times to justify or explain the present. War is simply not what it use to be. You have admitted this in previous posts. It is not armies meeting on the battle field. Any analogy to Roman times or even to the wars of the first half of the 20th century are incomplete at best. Churchill was a great military thinker in his time, but his understanding of war is not as relevant as it once was.
Also, I need to comment on this statement. You accuse me of having “a hodge-podge of ill-informed prejudice.”
Isn’t this what you have?
One, you are ill-informed. You are by no means an expert on war. You have basically read some books on it and drawn sweeping conclusions based on your incomplete knowledge. That only one or two men commited atrocities in Vietnam is just baseless speculation.
Two, you are prejudiced. You have shown a strong belief in the glory and effectiveness of Western warfare and a refusal to criticize our current war in any way.
You are not the scholar you think you are, friend. You, like Hansen, are trying to make an academic argument to support your prejudices.
34. Casper | April 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“It was lefty Aaron who brought up Kerry, first - it is the left which uses Kerry as a means of justifying attacks on McCain.”
I know that, just seems like the response was a little overboard.
“At any rate, I know my military history”
Actually you don’t Mark or you would know that there are thousands of examples of well disciplined troops that have done things we would consider barbaric. The books that you cited are more about war in general than individual soldiers and how they act in a time of war. Granted, the vast majority of our troops have served honorably, but that doesn’t mean they all have.
35. Jeremiah | April 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I know that, just seems like the response was a little overboard.
Casper, It seems as if you’re looking to excuse Kerry to villify McCain, eh?
Granted, the vast majority of our troops have served honorably, but that doesn’t mean they all have.
Any troop who will serve, deserves honor, and is honored! Whether he or she is discharged dis-honorably or honorably, makes no difference.
Try and look for ways to uplift the troops, Casper, instead of trampling on them, afterall, they save your life every day of the week.
Is that too much to ask?
–Jeremiah–
36. Jeremiah | April 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
What,
When you have terrorists coming in your neighborhood everyday, such as they were in Iraq, on suicide missions and you don’t have the military power to stop the onslaught, what are you supposed to do?
Equally, when you, as a neighbor of those being oppressed, do indeed have the military power to stop the onslaught…do you sit there and watch as your neighbors disappear into oblivion?
Who do you think we are fighting in Iraq…men women and children? Or the terrorists?
What would seem the more logical scenario?
Jeremiah
37. Casper | April 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Jeremiah,
“Casper, It seems as if you’re looking to excuse Kerry to villify McCain, eh?”
Where did I excuse Kerry and where did I vilify McCain?
“Any troop who will serve, deserves honor, and is “honored! Whether he or she is discharged dis-honorably or honorably, makes no difference.”
Does this mean who disagree with those that vilify Kerry?
“Try and look for ways to uplift the troops, Casper, instead of trampling on them, afterall, they save your life every day of the week.”
In the last year my wife and I have sent six packages and my students have sent over 250 letters to our troops. What have you done?
38. Canadian Observer | April 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
When you have terrorists coming in your neighborhood everyday, such as they were in Iraq, on suicide missions and you don’t have the military power to stop the onslaught, what are you supposed to do?
36. Jeremiah | April 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I think you have your time line screwed up, Jeremiah.
The terrorists came to the neighborhood on their suicide
missions AFTER the U.S. shock & awe invasion and subsequent occupation. BEFORE that, it was Saddam, who the Iraqi people suffered under.
Repeat after me, there were no terrorists conducting suicide missions until AFTER the American invasion.
39. Mark Noonan | April 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
what,
How else can one learn about war except by reading? Even the most experienced combat officer in the United States Army in 2008, if all he had was Iraq experience, would be highly incomplete in his military education without the intense study of the history of war and military affairs. I’m not claiming to be a military genius, just that I’m somebody who has studied military history, and thus has an informed opinion on the subject.
Your complaint about Hanson shows that you have read hostile reviews of his work, but have not read enough military history to understand the thoroughness of his analysis. He didn’t “pick and choose” save in the sense that with 1,000 examples available, he decided to include those which best illustrated his thesis - that the western way of war is inherently superior to any other way of war. If you knew more military history, you’d see this pretty easily - though, of course, you can pick and choose out of military history those few disasters of western arms vs non-western and construct an entirely false theory about how the western way of war is flawed.
War is a complex thing, and the best means of approaching the study of it is in Winston Churchill’s The World Crisis:
What are these Truths of War? Amongst them are:
1. Troops must be disciplined.
2. Troops must be well trained in the use of their weapons.
3. Concentration of superior force at the decisive point is more important than the total amount of force available.
There are a lot more - but if these three are adhered to then, all else being equal, you will win the battle; Well disciplined troops, well trained in the use of their weapons and brought to the vital place in superior force will always win. Have ill-disciplined troops, ill-trained troops or troops in the wrong place, and even if you outnumber the enemy ten to one, you’re going to get beaten. You can’t count on your general being a MacArthur or a Napoleon - but you can discipline your troops, train them well and learn how to move them about in an efficient manner. And so western armies have done since Greek times, and so western armies have almost always won in contests with non-western military forces.
Now, how do our enemies fight us? By hit and run raiding, and savagery designed to dishearten us. These are very typical tactics of non-western military forces - the other being to attempt to overwhelm by sheer weight of numbers, but the enemy has lacked this ability thus far (and, at any rate, it doesn’t work - as the Persians learned against Alexander, and the Chinese against us in Korea - though it did work at Little Big Horn because Custer failed to bring superior force to the decisive point - another Truth of War; Never divide your forces in face of a numerically superior enemy). Hit and run can do a lot of damage, but it cannot destroy an enemy force unless that force is ill-disciplined (as the Byzantines were at Manzikert in 1071 against the Turks - a force of hit-and-run raiders). Frightfullness can’t do anything other than frighten - but if we remain unafraid, then it isn’t a matter of if we can win, but when we will win. Its all just a matter of time and continual pressure by a disciplined, well trained force brought to the decisive point in superior strength. The only thing which can beat us is if we quit because we get scared, or disheartened.
So, yes, this war is different as I’ve pointed out in the past - but the Truths of War still apply, and thus it is entirely useful to learn them, so that they can be applied to the particular circumstances of the current war.
And this is not to glorify war - I don’t; I’ve said that there is glory in war, not that war - in and of itself - is glorious. War is an event and events are not glorious - what people do in them is glorious, or inglorious, depending on how they react.
40. Mark Noonan | April 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Casper,
No, the books I’ve read on military history are filled with military forces which lost the day due to ill-discipline…including the ill-discipline of being off doing looting and raping rather than concentrating on the matter at hand.
Certainly, individual soldiers can do horrible crimes - and in Vietnam I have no doubt that some US soldiers also happened to be criminals - just as in any large, human population, there will always be a subset of that population which ignores morality. But what Kerry did - to get us back to the genesis of this part of the argument - was to claim that savagery was commonplace in the US military in Vietnam. I point out that this cannot possibly be true because if such was the norm, then our troops were ill-disciplined and thus would have been easy prey for the very well disciplined Viet Cong and NVA - and this would be in spite of superior numbers and better weapons. Troops which are off being barbarians are not troops which are ready to meet a surprise enemy attack - even at our worst moment in Vietnam, at the start of Tet, the enemy found our forces to be well disciplined and fabulously well-trained in the use of weapons which were swiftly brought to bear in superior force upon the NVA/Viet Cong forces.
Its just not possible that this superb military force did the things the left claims it did - I don’t say that there wasn’t a barbarian or two in the Army, but that the Army wasn’t barbaric.
41. Casper | April 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Mark,
Your problem is you either don’t or refuse to understand what is going on in Iraq. There are the forces of Nuri al-Maliki (who has close ties with Iran), vs the forces of Moktada al-Sadr (who also has close ties with Iran), vs the Sunni militias (who we have been paying and arming for the last year), the Kurds (who just want to be left alone) vs Al-Qaeda (which we have pretty much defeated in the last year). The Sunnis that we are arming and paying today were shooting at us a year age. The Shiites who are our allies now could be shooting at us tomorrow. We are not fighting a war in a conventional sense.
We are occupying a country in the middle of a multidimensional civil war.
If we continue to support Nuri al-Maliki and help him defeat everyone else, there is a good chance that he will ally himself with Iran rather than us, and that’s one of the best case scenarios. The other ones get worse.
Our troops can’t be defeated in a conventional war, but this isn’t a conventional war.
42. Casper | April 6th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Mark,
The Vietnam war was fought over one and a half decades by hundreds of units comprising of hundreds of thousands of men. No one can make a generalization that applies to every every man in every unit. Do the soldiers at Abu Ghraib represent our soldiers in general? I don’t think so.
43. Jeremiah | April 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
In the last year my wife and I have sent six packages and my students have sent over 250 letters to our troops.
Casper,
The thing is, how much does it make all those packages and letters worth and then turn around and then call the war “stupid” and say that some have “not” served honorably? Nothing!
That’s like if I were to work for you all summer trimming your shrubbery, mowing the lawn, repairing and painting house, and then you pay me what it was worth and shake my hand at the end of the day for such a good job, and then turn around and stab me in the back by spreading false rumors about me that I didn’t do a thing, after you thanked and payed me.
So what did that make my time and money worth?
Well, at the end of the day, you got your work done, so my time wasn’t in vain, the only problem is, you just didn’t appreciate it, which is something that you will have to deal with in the by and by.
The same way with our troops, you’ll have to deal with the fact that you see the mission as some how “flawed” and “not worth it”. Ok? But one thing that you can’t escape, is that their job was not, is not, and will not be in vain, they’re doing what has to be done…so in the end, they have the final say on whether or not it was worth the mission, and I’m sure you’ll find that what they’re hearing back home from the Democrats by their (troops) judgment is that the Democrats are spreading a false and dangerous message to the American people. No question about it.
One more thing, and then I’ll let you go…
Does this mean who disagree with those that vilify Kerry?
I disagree with Mr. Kerry so far as he presumes to think that our military men and women are “uneducated” … You’re smarts are showing when you realise that we have enemies abroad and that we have an obligation to protect ourselves from those enemies. It seem you can’t find many with those kind of smart this day and age….as most are always saying that terrorists “never” existed in Iraq until after we invaded…that’s off the charts for, well, just plain stupidity.
The whole point of going to Iraq was to catch and dispatch terrorists from the area. And we should likewise disable Iran should they create a nuclear weapon for mass destruction.
To summarize the whole of what I’ve said so far, quite simply - we have enemies who want to kill us, want to take over the United States, who want to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth, to take over the world.
We have an obligation to defend ourselves from such oppressing individuals as Al Qaeda and the Islamist Jihadists…They day that we lose sight of this, is the day that we will be overtaken by our enemies, because it is in weakness of acknowledging the facts as they are seen being carried out against others, and as they chant in our direction.
‘Where there is no vision, the people perish’
–Jeremiah–
44. Mark Noonan | April 7th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Casper,
I just noticed that my long response to you has disappeared - must be some sort of systems issue. I don’t feel - at the moment - like trying to reconstruct it, but suffice it to say that it was really good.
What I’ll do is put up a entry one day soon about the strategy in Iraq, and we can have it out on that.
45. congressive | April 7th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Ah yes, patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels.
46. Cordless Lawnmower&hellip | May 16th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Cordless Lawnmower
Lawnmower, Cordless Lawnmower and Cordless