Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
|
 |
|
11-21-2005, 13:31 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country: 
|
Ah, but nothing the Democrats are doing is demoralizng the troops, right?
From PowerLine:
Quote:
We've written here several times about Minnesota's Lt. Col. Joe Repya, who volunteered to return to active duty for service in Iraq at age 59. Joe's previous service includes command of a rifle platoon in Vietnam and flying helicopters in the first Gulf War.
Joe is a classic citizen patriot and activist. He first came to public attention in March 2003 when, disturbed by the anti-war campaign mounted by Minnesota liberals, he arranged for the production of lawn signs saying "Liberate Iraq -- Support Our Troops." His effort garnered a lot of publicity, and Joe eventually distributed 30,000 signs.
Today he writes:
Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq in January to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:
I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they "Support the Troops" by wanting them to "Cut and Run" before victory is achieved.
I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.
I'm tired that so many American's think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.
I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.
I'm tired of the so called "Elite Left" that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.
I'm tired of anti-war protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.
I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom - Vietnam generation, who have such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.
I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives then they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.
I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.
Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.
Sincerely,
Joe Repya
Lieutenant Colonel
U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division
|
Is anybody listening?
__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
|
|
|
|
11-21-2005, 13:33 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 05-12-05
Country:
|
I wonder if they even remember their boy Bill Clintons 4 days of bombing and his quotes then before they even opened their mouths.  Glad to see a troop giving an ear full 
Last edited by Dreadnought : 11-21-2005 at 13:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
11-21-2005, 13:51 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bluesman
|
Lt Col. Joe Repya is not alone in his views. Many have echoed the same things. I hope the bastards in congress do not retaliate and make the colonels' and his troops job any more difficult than it already is. |
|
|
|
|
11-21-2005, 14:17 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country:
|
Okay, Lefties, tell me why you hate your country again.
Quote:
At Least Ezra Pound was Nuts
(written at haste, repented at leisure)
I never “got into” Vonnegut, or “dug” his work like my “buds,” several of whom pronounced his work as “intense,” so I am not particularly bothered to find he applauds suicide bombers, and thinks they experience “an amazing high.” In the literal sense, perhaps; it’s possible that skull fragments may reach the third floor before they carom off a balcony and patter back to earth.
I should note that Mr. Vonnegut’s comments, reported in the Australian, were made while touring to promote a collection of anti-Bush essays, and as such all attempts to refute them is intended to suppress his freedom of speech. It goes without saying he will be spending his senior years naked in a cell, fighting rats for a scrap of bread, writing brave quatrains on the wall with a shoelace-tip dipped in rat’s blood, awakened daily at 4 AM with bright lights and the national anthem. Such is life in Chimpsuit McHallihitler’s America. But I press on; this dissent isn’t going to suppress itself.
Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.
But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.
One suspects that Mr. V would hesitate to extend the same respect to American volunteers; one suspects he would believe they were motivated by twisted beliefs, religious or otherwise. The very fact that they had volunteered to be cogs in the war machine would be suspect. To borrow from another WW2 movie: everyone in the military ought to be freed on the grounds of insanity, as only an insane man would willingly agree to serve.
"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."
Personally, I think it’s a worse thing to deprive someone of their own self-life. While I grant that people who go to a wedding party in a Jordon hotel are just asking for it (Insert obligatory come-back about the US mistakenly bombing a northern Iraqi wedding party here) you have to admit that it’s better to be alive, even if you have to deal with VOA satellite transmissions telling you your race is nothing – so worthless, in fact, that it deserves a democracy like Iowans and Britons and Japanese. Oh, we could just nuke your cities and take your oil, but we hate you so much we’re going to stay here and bleed and force your warring factions to hold subcommittee meetings on the constitutional process. It's bored our people to tears; now it's your turn.
Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes.”
Somewhere in America, Bill Maher sprang a branch without quite knowing why.
Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."
Mr. Vonnegut – again, a patriot whose dissent is being cruelly ground into the nurturing earth before your eyes – seems to think that suicide bombings literally happen in a vacuum, an unpopulated space where the bombers just pop like soap bubbles. It may be painless for them – alas – but it is not painless for the victims. You’d think such an obvious observation would go without saying, but we are dealing with an intellectual. What Vonnegut calls brave – blowing yourself up so you can fly up to the great Bunny Ranch in the sky and rut with fragrant houris blessed with self-regenerating hymens – does not exactly compare to the bravery required of the survivors.
Anticipating murder for the glory of God must be an amazing high. Most people understand the emotional motivation that animates these people, but don’t spend much time on it, anymore than they wonder about the joy a child rapist feels when he has the kid in the woods. It’s one thing to consider it; it’s another to luxuriate in your considerations. An amazing high.
Dude. Don’t bogart the Semtex.
If these comments are reported accurately – if they didn’t remove the part where he says “nevertheless, they are horrid madmen who willingly slaughter children in the service of a depraved concept of God and human society” – then this ought to be a deal-breaker. This ought to be the point where the man is shunned, not feted, and held to account in every subsequent mention of his name and works. As in “Vonnegut, whose early works exposed the madness and nihilism of war, would later support the ‘sweet and honourable’ nature of men who set off nailbombs in public squares in the name of the organization that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.” But this will be regarded as nothing more than a beloved old uncle letting off a fart at a wedding and grinning widely when people turn around. Which is more likely: a book review that says Vonnegut’s criticisms of the Bush Regime must be considered in light of the author’s support of suicide bombers, or a review that says Vonnegut has made statements lauding bombers, BUT he brings up troubling issues / confronts the hypocrisy inherent in Washington / speaks truth to power / speaks Hindu to houseplants / etc.
I’m guessing you’ll see the latter more than the former. Not because the book reviewer necessarily agreest. But there is nothing to be gained from pointing out that Vonnegut is an addled old fool whose brain has rusted in the antiestablishment default position for so long he cannot distinguish between suicide bombers and people who stage a sit-in at a Woolworth’s counter. There is nothing to be gained from attacking the messenger when his other message is so delicious. Of course, all it would take is a few book editors in a few magazines to say “to hell with the old coot; I have a cousin serving in Iraq, and I’ll be goddamned if I give this hairy old fool a pass because he wrote a book my brother loved in college. What’s the matter with us? Do we excuse everything because it kicks Bush in the nuts? If Madonna puts on a suicide belt in her next video and sashays into St. Peters to protest, oh, I don’t know, popery, do we give her a f*$*#ing golf clap for pushing the envelope again?”
Vonnegut is described in the article as a “peace activist.”
As a wise giant said in “The Princess Bride” – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2005, 01:12 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country:
|
He's just another defeatist buttnugget.
Coulter has his number, and his party's, too:
NEW IDEA FOR ABORTION PARTY: AID THE ENEMY
by Ann Coulter
November 23, 2005
In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.
Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.
The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.
Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.
Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.
(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)
The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam).
What is known as a "hawk" in today's Democratic Party looks at what our military has accomplished and — during the war, while our troops are in harm's way — demands that we withdraw our troops.
In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Claiming the war is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said the "American public is way ahead of us."
Fed up with being endlessly told "the American people" have turned against the war in Iraq, Republicans asked the Democrats to show what they had in their hand and vote on a resolution to withdraw the troops.
By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)
The vote is all the more shocking because of what it says about the Democrats' motives in attacking the war — as well as alerting us to three members of Congress we really need to keep an eye on.
It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.
Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.
"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
What are we to make of the fact that — as we now know — the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)
The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.
They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.
COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2005, 12:52 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: 08-03-03
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
Country:
|
The way the Lt. Col tells it..The Coalition in Iraq is losing in the States.
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2005, 18:00 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country:
|
I sent the following message to MoveOn.org:
Quote:
SUBJ: Why do you want the US to be defeated in Iraq?
Do you hate the United States of America? Or do you not see that bringing the troops home and accomplishing the terrorist's mission for them is aiding a mortal enemy of the United States?
Do you pretend to not know that we are winning in Iraq, and that it's worth what we're doing there? Or would you rather just throw away all the remarkable acheivements, so that President Bush is damaged politically, no matter the cost to the country?
Why can't you understand how wrong you are about, well, EVERY SINGLE THING YOU BELIEVE?
If you don't wish to answer all of these questions, I understand, but please pick one or two, because I simply do not understand how you can be anything but enemy sympathizers or deluded fools with the positions that you've taken. I'd like to understand how an American (or at least someone with US citizenship) can do this to me, my wife (an active-duty Air Force officer), and all of our comrades-in-arms while we're trying so hard to complete an honorable and worthy mission.
|
Can't wait to see what they send back... |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 01:32 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
A Self Important
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 08-03-03
Country: 
|
Quote:
|
Do you hate the United States of America?
|
Kind of like asking when did someone stop beating their wife...  |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 02:42 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 09-04-03
Location: Boston, MA, USPRA
|
Only in the since that it shouldn't be a question
__________________
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 09:51 AM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
|
Patron
|
ü
Last edited by Sombra : 12-01-2005 at 10:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2005, 14:11 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: 08-03-03
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
Country:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bluesman
I sent the following message to MoveOn.org:
Can't wait to see what they send back... |
If they reply at all them post it up here. If these dumbasses had things their way they would point & laugh at President Bush as he's entering Norad and the doors close, while those same enemies of America overrunning the country close in on them, being left outside. |
|
|
|
|
12-02-2005, 14:09 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 05-12-05
Country:
|
Was surfing and found some incouraging words from Gen. Tommy Franks  |
|
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 12:44 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country:
|
HERE is the answer to the Democrats' partisanship and defeatism:
Quote:
December 3, 2005
Hit ‘Em Again, Harder
By J. Peter Mulhern
When he took the nation’s highest office, George W. Bush famously called himself a uniter, not a divider, signaling a kinder, gentler approach to Washington politics. Fat lot of good it did him. He faces opponents who offer no quarter, even when the national interest is at stake. It is well past time to take off the gloves and return fire.
The President’s speech at the United States Naval Academy this week was powerful. It said most of the things that need saying about our war in Iraq and it left the Democrats backpedaling as they gasped for breath. At the heart of the President’s argument, however, was a contradiction which undercuts his case for the war in Iraq.
The President castigated those who demand an “artificial timetable” for an American withdrawal, but only after making this remarkable disclaimer:
“Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere, but I believe they’re sincerely wrong.”
But then the President went on to say
“Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.
“To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.”
How is it possible that purportedly patriotic American public officials can be sincere when they conspire to cut and run from our deadly enemies, to portray America as a weak and unreliable ally and to invite new attacks on our homeland? The President can’t have it both ways. If he is right about the dire consequences of preemptive withdrawal, he must be wrong about his opponents’ sincerity. When he concedes their sincerity he calls his own into question. The average listener hears him say that the Democrats are sincere and concludes that their policy prescriptions can’t be as outrageous as he says they are.
As it happens, the Democrats aren’t sincere. They aren’t anywhere in the vicinity of sincerity. When they call for withdrawal from Iraq, as Nancy Pelosi did again in a response to the President’s speech, they are damaging their country. As the President pointed out, this is obvious. No Democrat has even tried to argue that scheduling a withdrawal would not have the consequences the President outlined. We must conclude that the Democrats know they are working counter to America’s interests at the same time they present themselves as patriotic public servants. This is the antithesis of sincerity.
The Democrats are, in fact, so insincere that they will not even acknowledge their own words, let alone defend them. Senator John Kerry, responding on behalf of his party, whined that Democrats never wanted a timetable for withdrawal, just a timetable for success.
This is the same Senator Kerry who, on October 27, 2005, called for an immediate withdrawal of 20,000 troops with the great bulk of the remainder to follow by the end of 2006. The Washington Post certainly thought Kerry was proposing a timetable for withdrawal. It noted that Kerry was “the highest-profile figure in either party to back a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.”
Maybe Kerry is so complex and profound that even the Washington Post cannot follow his interlocking nuances. On the other hand, he just might be a pompous windbag without even enough wit to gesture in the direction of consistency. Pompous windbag seems about right to me.
Kerry didn’t try to reconcile what he said in October with what he said in November. Nor did he bother to explain how the President might be able to provide a timetable for success without consulting Ms. Clio. His speech was, as usual, nothing but bland, meaningless mush. It is incredible that Kerry ever rose above trying dog bite cases in Boston. In a sense, he never did.
President Bush has been extraordinarily fortunate in his political enemies. They, in turn, have been fortunate in him. He has no appetite for rhetorical hardball. Now and then he will state an unpleasant truth about the Democrats in Congress, but he never follows his own insights to their logical conclusions. The rest of us are left wondering whether he believes what he says.
A war leader can’t afford to raise that kind of doubt.
As every parent learns, leadership is largely about consistency. When the President describes outrageous conduct but fails to condemn it or to show outrage he is sending a mixed message. No war leader can afford mixed messages. President Bush, in particular, needs to speak with clarity and urgency.
We can’t lose in Iraq; the balance of forces favors us overwhelmingly. We can, however, lose the political battle at home. Everything depends on the President’s ability to fight that battle. If he is going to do that effectively he has to start treating the Democrat Party as the domestic enemy that it is. Continuing to pretend that the Democrats are a loyal, if misguided, opposition will only introduce more confusion where we most need clarity.
Of course, the President may be engaging in a bit of insincerity of his own when he concedes his opponents’ good faith. He may be following in the tradition of Marc Anthony’s funeral oration from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Marc Anthony punctuates his praise for the assassinated Caesar by saying repeatedly “But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man.” The scene ends with Mark Anthony’s audience storming off to burn Brutus’ home.
Subtlety worked for Marc Anthony but, he had history’s greatest speechwriter in his corner. Saying exactly what you mean in consistent, direct declarative sentences is a better approach, particularly if you have the verbal grace of George W. Bush.
If the President is trying to sweeten his image by avoiding any direct attack on his domestic enemies he is going to be disappointed. His enemies include the entire Democrat establishment (with the sole exception of Senator Lieberman), all the major daily newspapers and all three of the old line television broadcasting networks. Their hatred for him is white hot. They will remain implacably hostile even if he blows them kisses and throws roses at their feet. They will view everything he does and everything he says through the prism of their hostility. He has nothing to lose by telling the truth about them. He might as well be hanged for a sheep as a goat.
The President has nothing to lose by attacking the Democrats and a great deal to gain. Democrats are extremely vulnerable right now and President Bush should press his advantage. It isn’t enough to beat their pathetic arguments. The goal is to beat them and to do so decisively. That goal is well within reach.
The Democrat Party has just entered the McGovern Zone. The nation is at war against deadly enemies and the Democrats are going into an election committed to capitulation. They are gambling everything on failure in Iraq. If, in six months, successful elections have been held in Iraq and we have begun reducing our troop levels there, only a few hardcore nutjobs will still cling to the idea that Iraq is a hopeless quagmire. That idea is all the Democrats have to offer and when it dies the Democrat Party itself will be teetering on the edge of extinction.
We know what an election looks like when one party nails its colors to the mast of the SS Surrender while the other makes steady progress toward “peace with honor.” It happened in 1972. If the Democrats want a rerun it is up to President Bush and the Republican Party to make that rerun as devastating as possible.
Make them pay through the nose for their defeatism, Mr. President. Remember Al Gore sweating and frothing and the mouth as he bellowed that you “betrayed this country.” Throw it back at them with interest.
Attack until they stop twitching and then attack some more. If this seems unpresidential, the Vice President can do it. But one way or another, it’s past time for a serious offensive on the home front.
Fortune favors the bold.
J. Peter Mulhern is a frequent contributor to The American Thinker. He is lawyer in the Washington, DC area, and a regular guest commentator on KSFO radio in San Francisco.
|
AWESOME, and I just wish it would happen, SOON. |
|
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 13:07 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
|
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Country:
|
In my continuing one-man war on moonbattery (band name?), I called some whacko outfit called 'Texans for Peace', and got their director on the phone a couple of nights ago. We had a fairly testy conversation, and he actually responded to this message I left on their 'Contact' link on their website:
Quote:
|
You're not for peace; you're for surrender. I just got off the phone with the most useful (to our enemies) of idiots, your founder. This organization is trying kill me and my wife (an active-duty Air Force officer, due to deploy to Iraq in May), and defeat our mission. I hope you fail, but if you succeed, may your chains rest lightly upon you all.
|
Texans for Peace Director Charlie Jackson's reply:
Quote:
Thank you for your comments and call. While we may not agree on many things, it is valuable to share perspectives. However, regarding your most outrageous assertions:
1. You apparently need to become better informed about who is doing the fighting in Iraq, creating IEDs, etc.
2. I can understand the concern you have for your wife, but try not to use transference.
3. Our mission is peace and social justice, particularly focused on Texas. There are organizations in Florida you could join should you be interested in groups with peace missions.
Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
|
And finally, what I just sent him:
Quote:
If you are outraged about any assertion I made, I am absolutely appalled by several of yours, the most appalling BY FAR was that you meet with my enemies, and the murderers of your uniformed countrymen and the innocents of the people you claim to care so much about. I'm no legal expert, but I think you may be in violation of the law by doing that, but even if you're not a criminal, I am absolutely certain that you are immoral and are engaing in a completely disgusting grandstand display of support for the most depraved people in the entire world, all, apparently, so that you may pretend to be advancing 'peace'. No sale, Charlie; I reject utterly your claim to any standing as an agent for good. You're not.
I reitierate: you are NOT for peace, you are for surrender. Your activities aid and comfort the very worst people on the planet, and I am ashamed that you hold US citizenship. You are so blind, so deluded, so in love with your self-image as a pure-hearted and important peacemaker that braves hazards in order to play a role in halting a mission being accomplished by the mighty military of the world's hyperpower. You are no Messiah; you're a dupe and a deluded fool that has managed to completely overlook the fact that, should you prevail, a calamity will immediately ensue, and blood will flow ankle-deep in the streets of every city in Iraq...and then it will spread further.
1. I know EXACTLY who builds and uses IEDs in Iraq. I read about it every single day that I go to work as an intelligence analyst for Special Operations Command. It is beyond irony that YOU, an ignorant and fuzzy-headed occasional busybody and general international gadfly, would seek to lecture ME, an intelligence professional with 20 years' experience, and for the last five years a subject matter expert on Iraq. I know very well who has been killing innocent Iraqis and my American comrades-in-arms, and there is nothing you could add to that knowlwdge. Nothing at all.
2. You cannot understand the concern I have for my wife in any way. You do not believe in the value of her mission, you do not know what it is to willingly place one's life in the country's service for unbroken decades at a time, and you cannot for one moment conceive that you are wrong about everything you believe. You've convinced youself of your own righteousness, of course, but the reality is that what you're doing is placing her, me, yourself, and everybody else at greater risk, because you seek to frustrate her and me in our mission. I am concerned that she is going into a place where the people that you would see triumph would instantly kill her, if they had the chance. You increase that chance by your actions. Don't tell me you understand my concern, because if you really, truly did, you would support our mission and work for its success.
3. And finally, I already belong to the greatest peace organization in the world, the United States military, and I have been working as hard as I can for the last 20 years in pursuit of peace. In that time, I have helped in the liberation of MILLIONS of human beings, and saved countless millions more. No other organization, certainly not yours nor its moral equivalents in Florida or anywhere else on the planet, can claim as much.
When I called you, I was interested in your group's affiliations with other groups, particularly those of socialist, communist, or other far-left groups of political activism. You claimed to be affiliated with many other groups interested in 'peace' and what you conceive to be 'social justice'. If you're not ashamed of those affiliations, I'm still interested to know exactly which organizations those are. The way I came upon your outfit was by researching a story of a California woman (I don't have her name in front of me) who seeks to keep military recruiters out of high schools. She is a member of a communist organization, the website of which links to YOUR organization. Hence, my question: which groups work with yours? (By the way, this is a private matter that I'm merely curious about, and has no connection with any official inquiry. It is entirely unrelated to my position or duties. So, please don't let me unintentionally give you the thrill and frisson of being so important to the government and/or military as to be 'under investigation' or somesuch. Although I'm sure that would give a delicious skin crawl and some fun chills to your group as you meet in a darkened basement, it's really much more mundane: I just want to know which other poseurs and cranks you exchange high-fives with, after each tidbit of bad news makes the news.)
I'm going to work now (yes, even on weekends; there's a war on, you know) to try to do some REAL social work for the Iraqis, and to make sure that they can have as peaceful an election in two weeks as your friends the terrorists will allow.
Bluesman, Warrior and Peacemaker
|
Last edited by Bluesman : 12-03-2005 at 13:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
 Linear Mode | | | 
