Thursday, April 13, 2006

Troops in Support of the War

This is a test. Following are seven comments posted to my blog re “Ayatollah, Don’t Khomieni Closer” (4/11/06). Question 1: Which ones sound like the words of intelligent people? Question 2: Which have weight? Question 3: Who would you trust with our national security? (Hint: None of the answers are “anonymous.”) Thank you, Cowboy and Jen.

Anonymous said…. Hey Bill, just curious if you ever served in the military? It seems like it's precisely those who beat the war drums the most are the ones who've never been in combat.


Anonymous said… Looks like Bill's been reading too much Tom Clancy. For most of these chickenhawks, war is a boardgame, kind of like Stratego. They have pictures of marines hanging out in Djibouti, but have never been in a combat zone to see those young people die.

Yolo Cowboy said... Hey Bill, it seems like the first two anonymous guests don't have a problem with a lunatic possessing a nuclear bomb and the blind ambition to bring about the coming of the 12th Imam. Sometimes there is no alternative to stopping a mentally disturbed Islamo-fascist before he attains the means to start WWIII. If you think a very small yield, tactical nuclear warhead taking out this madman’s nuclear arsenal is bad, what do think of a full scale nuclear exchange with Iran and North Korea?

Anonymous said... Yolo, Hate to harp on this, but are you of military age and/or did you serve? We need less soldiers with the 101st Keyboard Brigade and more able bodied soldiers to "liberate" Iraq.

fetching jen said... Such hostility with the liberal anon posters... I wasn’t able to serve but come from a military family. Even my liberal sister supports the war (she was in Iraq for one year). She was in combat and met Iraqi's who are grateful for America.

Anonymous said... Bill, You are one sick SOB. Please get some help….E.J. Saperstein

Yolo Cowboy said... First Anon, I would like to thank you for your service. I don't what your status has to do with the threat posed by a madman who is enriching uranium. Either, your views have merit or they don't, the messenger has little to do with it.


Anony seems to have a military background, but so did John Kerry (He served in Vietnam, you know.) but I have no respect for his opinions and thank God that he is not the Commander-in-Chief. There are active military men who have the bona-fides to speak for the troops, including Col. Dave McCarthy, Major Rob Barry, Cpl. Brian Weiss and Sgt. John Walton.


A vet who can speak for the troops is Wade Zirkle who served two tours in Iraq with the Marines before being wounded in action. Wade is a founder and executive director of about
Vets for Freedom, the new organization made up of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are getting the word out about the accomplishments of the fighting military. Zirkle’s op-ed in this morning's Washington Post, "Troops in Support of the War," addresses the antiwar lefties who pretend to speak for the troops. Following are excerpts.

Earlier this year there was a town hall meeting on the Iraq war, sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), and featuring Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who had become an outspoken critic of the war, with the participation of such antiwar organizations as CodePink and MoveOn.org. To this Iraq war veteran, it was a good example of something that's become all too common: People from politics, the media and elsewhere purporting to represent "our" views. With all due respect, most often they don't.

John Murtha has earned the right to speak. But his comments supposedly expressing the negative views of those who have and are now serving in the Middle East run counter to what I and others know and hear from our own colleagues -- from junior officers to the enlisted backbone of our fighting force. Murtha undoubtedly knows full well that the greatest single thing that drags on morale in war is the loss of a buddy. But second to that is politicians questioning, in amplified tones, the validity of that loss to our families, colleagues, the nation and the world.

While we don't question his motives, we do question his assumptions. When he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, there was a sense of respectful disagreement among most military personnel. But when he subsequently stated that he would not join today's military, he made clear to the majority of us that he is out of touch with the troops. Quite frankly, it was received as a slap in the face.

The morale of the trigger-pulling class of today's fighting force is strong. Unfortunately, we have not had a microphone or media audience willing to report our comments.

I believe it is our responsibility as Americans to amplify the words of these American heroes. Don’t forget to visit their site
Vets for Freedom, and contribute to their cause and ours.

ps. I'm listening to Wade Zirkle on
Hugh Hewitt's show right now. He is an eloquent spokesman for our military.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Ray said...

Bill,

Wow, I’m sorry I missed that exchange. Anon makes a very childish argument when he says that people without military background can’t have or speak their opinion on military matters. Following that logic would mean only former Presidents could criticize the current President.

Anon, as an Army physician you have to admit that when in the field, you continually see the most hellish side of combat. Most military members don’t have that experience. Your experience does give you an edge on some matters, but may cloud your judgment on foreign policy. Stop and think for a minute. Can you give me one good thing that can come from Iran having nuclear weapons?

Diplomacy, without the threat of force, is just empty babbling.

As far as I’m concerned we need to listen to the opinions of all rational people. I count Cowboy, Jen and you Bill among those.

Ray
Gulf War Vet

8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The argument is really that we should be very circumspect when we discuss using military power, especially nuclear weapons. Bill doesn't bother to post anything other than the use of force. I agree, it would be terrible for Iran to get nukes, but beating the war drums publicly puts us in a corner. The best thing is to get the message to Iran through back channels that if they develop a nuclear weapon, they will be destroyed, simple as that. If that happens, we should prepared to see a worldwide resurgence of terrorism as well as increased violence in Iraq. The problem is that the world doesn't believe us anymore, since we didn't find WMD's. Now we are stuck in a situation where we have no credibility against a state who actually has the capacity to develop nukes. I'm not against war, I am against strategic errors and civilians in our government who don't care what the military experts think. I also like to remind non-military, pro-war bloggers that real people die and get injured in combat in ways I can't even describe to you. It is jumping the gun to bang war drums when we the military options aren't that great to begin with, and if we do use that option, there will be cost in blood. I just wish Bill and friends would ponder that, that's all.

9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's so common and yet unfortunate that people like Mr. Saperstein have nothing intelligent to say so they attack someone personally.

"Anonymous said... Bill, You are one sick SOB. Please get some help….E.J. Saperstein."

Childish, mean, silly, ignorant and rude are those people who, when they have nothing to say of any value, go to the lowest denominator in conversation. Interestingly I find them to be liberal-minded and many times non-voters! What a hoot.

Dori

10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I said you were a sick SOB, I was being quite serious. You obviously suffer from what is commonly called a Napoleonic Complex--which manifests itself in several ways, most often, victims of this insanity feel the compulsion to prove their self-worth through fighting.

Bill, give your family an early Easter present by checking yourself into a mental institution.

Good Luck.

Sincerely,

E.J. Saperstein

8:41 AM

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill

Anon has hit the nail on the head. You, Jen, Cowboy and your ilk need to take his point very seriously.

The Iraq disaster resulted from an irrational and premature rush by our administration to a military option, which could and should have been avoided. We should not repeat that terrible mistake in Iran, where the stakes are even higher.

I too agree that the Iranians can not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, especially with their current leadership. But let's at least try to understand their position. We are a powerful superpower armed to the teeth with nukes. We've invaded their closest neighbor for largely spurious reasons. We support another close neighbor and enemy of theirs, namely Israel, who also has nukes. So, not surprisingly they want some too. We see ourselves as benign and peace-loving. They see us as a highly armed invader. Given that. How best to deal with them? Forgive me, but the answer right now is not to threaten them with bunker-busting nukes. There are more rational approaches which need to be pursued first. So let's turn off the shrill bullying rhetoric and deal with problem we've got.

If you need to feel warlike, go buy some combat clothes and thrash about in the bushes in your backyard, or buy some violent video games for use in your home. That way, you can feel like the soldier you want to be without doing any damage.

Tex

11:19 AM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

E. J. Saperstein,

Adhominem attacks are not allowed on this site. Dori is right, it is childish, mean, silly, ignorant and rude. Your future comments will be deleted.

Tex,
Our disagreement stems from your first assumption. You say "The Iraq disaster..." when I and every active military man I know or read or hear says Iraq is a success on so many levels. I will not argue that with you but it is at the heart of our disagreement.

Furthermore you think the Iraq war "should have been avoided." That means Saddam, his homicidal sons and the Baath party would still be in power, the sanctions would be lifted, Iraq would be developing WMD and aiding terrorists all over the globe. Of course China, Russia and France would be even richer from the oil-for-food CRIME, but never mind.

Then you say something I agree with: "The Iranians can not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, especially with their current leadership." But you blow it by asking that we "try to understand their position." Like that should matter to our foreign policy.

And you think "There are more rational approaches (for dealing with Iran) which need to be pursued first. Pray tell what are those ways? I hope you don't say work with the "international community" like we tried with Iraq. That is a dead end, and you know it.

Finally, I appreciate your thoughtful comments even when we disagree, but do not like your personal attacks: "If you need to feel warlike, go buy some combat clothes..." This is your last chance. Any more of those and I will delete all your future posts.

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard Wade w Hewitt yesterday in my car as am finally able to drive. Your post was right on!!. As a WP Mother whose son agrees totally, keep up the posts re our troops. Also loved the post re your grandson.

Marie

12:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home