Archive for the ‘Wars’ Category

Negotiation –

6 May 08

We were watching The Patriot with director’s commentary. For a fellow who made a movie about the American Revolution he had the standard liberal’s misunderstanding of what war is and what negotiation is.

Deep sigh. First off, negotiation requires that the parties at hand be willing to sit down at a table and discuss the issue(s) at hand. Secondly, in the liberal understanding of things they seems to think that both parties will each give a little bit and arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement.

If the parties hold diametrically opposed views and/or one will not sit down to discuss the matter, then what? Kosovo comes to mind. The liberal view is that the parties should have just sat down and talked out their differences. Fact is, you had Moslem invaders that had been systematically persecuting native Christians for 400 years, and wanted to keep on doing so. You had native Christians (the Serbians) who wanted these invaders and persecutors out. As usual, the libs leading this country had us siding with the Moslems and bombing the Christians. But anyway, where is the negotiating room here? The Moslems weren’t going to leave peaceably. They were not going to stop persecuting the Christians. The Moslems had (as usual) no intention of giving any on that position. The Christians wanted freedom and the Moslems out of their hereditary lands. There was no give in their position.

Liberals seem to think that war is the same thing as a fist fight, and if everyone just went home and slept it off everything would be fine. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. War is not testosterone gone amuck. War is an instrument of national policy. War takes place when negotiations and diplomats have failed. If a nation has a goal which can not be achieved by diplomatic means it must either give up that goal or resort to war as the final choice.

For instance, the Germans of the 1930s entered into all kinds of negotiations and signed all kinds of agreements, which they happily broke and then entered into more negotiations and treaties, buying all kinds of time. Chamberlain was the liberal of his day and proudly proclaimed “peace for our time” after entering into the Munich Agreement which gave a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for the German’s promise to be good boys and not do it again. After digesting the big bite for a year and consolidating their position, the Germans invaded Poland. The only way to stop a nation that will not negotiate honorably is war. Otherwise they will do what they please.

The Korean War took place when North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help. North Korea’s position was that they had conquered and would hold South Korea as theirs and would not give it up. The United Nations declared war upon North Korea and invaded to free the South Koreans. The United States troops sent to Korea were part of the UN forces. The United States did not declare a separate war upon North Korea. Contrary to the TV show MASH with its frequent soulful “why are we here” dialogs, most people understood quite well why we were there. It had nothing to do with “stopping the red stain” as Frank Burns so stupidly and piously intoned. Notice the standard Hollywierd liberal ploy of making all liberals reasonable and intelligent and all conservative positions stupid and ridiculous? It had everything to do with honoring the UN resolution to protect an ally who was being systematically conquered and pillaged. That is the same UN which the current crop of liberals wants to have running the planet nowadays. Especially if it puts the US in a bad position. BTW – if that had been a US war and we had finished it, instead of pulling out when the UN said to, we would not have the North Korean problem today. The people of North Korea would not be starving, they would be just as fat, sassy, and wealthy as the South Koreans are today.

Anyone who thinks that negotiation can be successful when one of the parties will not make treaties or hold to honorable terms will deserve what they get. Conquered. Or should we continue to let aggressors do as they damn well please until there is no freedom in the world? A nation that will not fight will not continue to exist. A people that will not fight will not keep freedom.

If we take war off the table, then there is nothing to make rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea, etc. even come to the table. We have to no reason to expect them to even go through the motions of negotiation, much less keep their word if there is no expectation of retaliation and punishment through war.

While no one in his right mind considers war desirable, it is still an instrument of policy that must be available. No pantywaist liberal abhors and hates war as much as the military does. The difference is that our military accepts the role of protector of freedom. The loudmouth pacifistic types seem only to protest those who protect freedom. I never see them protesting those who would take freedom away. When was the last time you saw the Code Pink people protest radical Islam? When was the last time you saw the peaceniks protest an aggressive dictatorship such as North Korea? When was the last time you saw protests against the murderous bombing of innocent civilians by Moslem terrorists such as we see every day on the news?

Them’s the facts, ma’am.


But they never did anything to ME –

12 February 08

Oh yes – the good old “they never did anything to me” argument. So, it is ok for torture to happen as long as it doesn’t happen to you? You can stand by and peacefully watch a mugger beat hell out of someone as long as it doesn’t happen to you? You can happily watch a murder as long as it doesn’t happen to you? I guess so, because that’s what you see on the news all the time.I see horrible atrocities committed by the Sudanese against the people of Darfur. There is a growing sense among libs that they would like for “something to be done”. Well, the only something to be done is going to have to be force. The Sudanese will not respond to anything else. We don’t have any other leverage against them. But wait – the Sudanese never did anything to us. Why should we intervene? Why should the Sudan take precedence over North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan? These do represent threats to us as a nation. The Sudanese do not. Why do libs want to twiddle with another nations sovereignty, and not protect ours? “Is a puzzlement.”

If some jackass mutters a racially wrong word, even if unintentional, I see the press and the left out with cross and nails and hammers. For days. The story gets beat into the ground. But anything like public indifference to crime is just sloughed off. I hear the Al Frankens of the left go on about things that never happened – Tawana Brawley, Duke Lacrosse – but I don’t hear their outrage if a black punk beats up a frail and distinguished WWII vet, I think in Philadelphia, not one word of outrage do I hear from the race lords or the press.

Herself Sez: And what about the couple in Killeen, TX – Todd and Stacy Bagley were kidnapped on the way to church, lit on fire, burned to death and shot in the head by four blacks. This was not investigated as a “hate crime.” In Burlington, NC – A 10 year old white child, Tiffany Long, was raped, sodomized, sexually tortured and murdered by two black males and a black female. The black female so viciously rammed a broomstick into the child, that the parents were prohibited from seeing their dead daughter’s body. This was not investigated as a hate crime. These are ONLY TWO of the many crimes not reported by the national media – while non-crimes are over reported. Back to your regularly scheduled correspondent.

It is horrible if one human damages another. The race or sex or nationality or religion of either party is irrelevant. It is also rather irrelevant what one grandfather may have done to another. There is no excuse. Libs – quit excusing bad behavior of anyone. Anywhere. Any color. Any religion. You seem to think that America deserves anything that comes our way. Nonsense. Quit comforting our enemies.

Gays in the Military –

13 January 08

There are several things to look at here. First of all there are the rights, duties, and obligations of any citizen. Male, female, black, white, or whatever. The fact is that a citizen is a citizen. So, on that level there should be no problem with any mentally sound and physically qualified citizen voluntarily serving.There is another level to this. The practical fact is that there is a great spectrum of people in the military. Many of these people will have no particular problem with people who have some differences. But there are those who do.

When I was brought home from the hospital shortly after birth the first music I ever heard was Mozart’s wonderful opera The Magic Flute. I learned to love classical music, opera, and Baroque – “Ah, Bach” – Radar O’Reilly.

When I was maybe 8 or 9 I discovered my mother’s 30’s and 40’s big band records – old 78 rpm stuff. By the time I was 10 I had discovered jazz at the local library. Jazz from the earliest New Orleans, Memphis, and Chicago. Boogie. Big band. Modern jazz. Loved it all. The library also had the wonderful Folkways series. I learned to love all kinds of real folk music: Andean Indian flute music, Russian Balalaika, African drum chorus, Japanese Taiko drums, wonderful stuff all. (This does all tie in).

In the 8th grade we baby-boomers had an overflow class at one of the local grammar schools since we had overloaded the local high school. Therefore the 9th grade was the first time I was actually on the public high school property and had been exposed to older teen types. One day toward the beginning of the school year I was in the band room and one of the older types was going on about the Beatles coming to this country for the first time. You can figure the year from that. Anyway, somehow I got asked about the Beatles and did not know who or what they were. After being told that they were rockie-rollies I must have said something about not liking rock. The next thing I knew I was being beat on by a couple of larger and older types for not liking rock. I quickly learned that blending in with protective camo was a good idea. Minor, compared to having to hide something as large as gay, but instructive nevertheless. Now, this was a persecution for being different, and no matter how right I was or was not; no matter how wrong they were or were not, the bruises were real and I really didn’t lose anything (except more bruises) by keeping my mouth shut when pop music was being discussed. My opinions did not change, just what I exposed. This was only one of the minor things I learned not to blab around groups of redneck boys. These were not really bad boys, I was just different.

Now, what in the hell does this have to do with gays in the military? (Or anywhere else). Well, it is a normal human thing to distrust the stranger. Those who are different may be persecuted. This is a normal pack behavior and we are pack animals. It is all well and good to say that anyone who discriminates against gays will be prosecuted, but if you have been beaten or even murdered that is rather cold comfort to know that you will be avenged. Better to not broadcast your differences and survive. This doesn’t mean that you have to live your life in fear and stay in a closet. It does mean that the correct position is to not rub your difference into others faces. The correct answer to “are you gay” is “that is none of anyone else’s business”.

Go play as you will on leave, but it is not necessary to discuss in bull sessions. The same applies to any workplace environment. If you rub other’s faces in your differences it may be you that gets the bloody nose.

There are two military conditions: not in combat and in combat. If not in combat the main thing you have to worry about is getting beat or shunned. Either is not a goodness. In combat, if your buds think they cannot depend on you, well, you could get shot by the enemy or your own buds. If they think that you are not dependable they may not cover your butt when needed.

This is not to say that gay and military cannot go together. Nuts. They can. People mocked Clinton’s don’t ask/don’t tell policy, but it really is one of the better things that he did. You must understand that I am not a Clinton fan by any means. In combat, you must absolutely depend on your buds and they must be able to depend on you. Any weakness in the unit can be fatal.

It is possible that over time it may even come to the point that sexual orientation is irrelevant compared to the many good things they like about you. But that will take time. No matter how much legislation is passed, you will have to prove yourself as a person and as a soldier before anything else is accepted. Legal props mean nothing in combat. Laws are irrelevant to a corpse. Not fair, I agree, but that is the reality of combat.

I was a Marine. Perhaps the best advice I can give you is: “Just shut up and soldier”.

BTW – rednecks are not the only dangerous group. Try being a conservative around a crowd of libs. Just as bad. Oh, they might not get physical, but the persecution will be just a vicious. They don’t go for the throat, they go for the groin.

Conundrum –

18 December 07

If we are invaded, do we have the right to forcibly resist? If the Germans had occupied us would the correct response have been to try to throw them out a la French Resistance? Would we not rejoice if we won our freedom and killed and drove out the conquerors? Is it morally correct if we can do it to the original invaders? Is it still correct if it takes a generation to get rid of the bad guys? Two generations? Four? 200 years? 400 years?

A good term for taking the country back and driving out the invaders might be ‘ethnic cleansing’. Think about that.

If it is morally correct, as some of the more radical left states, to give the US back to the Indians – oops, pc = ‘native American’. Or to the Mexicans – who took it from the Indians, who took it from the previous occupying tribes, ad nauseum. Mostly you will notice that they hate the country and that the operative word is ‘give it back’. Now, as I say, if the preceding is morally correct, then why do the same aforementioned leftists get their panties in such a wad over the Serbians? It was their country for quite a while. As in centuries. As in longer than some of the Indian tribes occupied their territories. The Bosnians are Moslem invaders. About 400 years ago the Moslems came in and raped, murdered, pillaged, and occupied. They didn’t go home. To drive people out usually takes a bit of force. I will not defend torture and other such heinous acts. But let us remember, the Bosnians are equally guilty of atrocities against the Serbs. Today. Now. Yesterday. And for the last 400 years. Yet, thanks to the left, the US sided with the Moslems, bombed and invaded the Serbians and forcibly stopped them from driving the invaders from their homes.

Where is the cutoff? When does an occupying people become the native people? Is it ok for one Indian tribe to conquer another? Is it ok for Moslems to conquer and hold territory? Or is it that it is only wrong for European (white) Christians to occupy territory?

There is a marvelous scene in Shogun, both the book and the mini-series. What a concept – a movie that pretty much followed the book! Anyway, Toranaga asks Blackthorn if the Dutch were not vassals of the Spanish throne. Blackthorn allows that this is true. Toranaga states that it is unpardonable for a vassal to rebel against his lord. A true betrayal. Blackthorn insists that there is a case when it may be considered moral. Toranaga queries. Blackthorn’s response – “…if you win!” After a stunned moment Toranaga laughingly admits that Blackthorn has the right of it.

In his Starship Troopers – the real thing, the book, not the movie. How unusual, a movie that has damn near nothing to do with the book. There is considerable philosophy in the book – none in the movie. There is a discussion of the role of force in the history of the world. The upshot is that the drivel about force never solving anything is just that – drivel. The fact is that war – force, is a necessary part of the political process. When discussion, compromise, and diplomacy have failed, then a people can (and will) resort to force to gain their ends. If the opposing group is bent on the destruction of one’s group, either to take all of the food (a rational reason) or for pure hatred (a psychotic motivation), the only choice may be for one’s group to resist with force, or to just surrender and die. I suppose that it is my narrow and provincial attitude, but I prefer for my own group to survive. I think that if we defend because of rational reasons, it will be better for the future if our seed is preserved rather than that of psychotics. Do you lefties want the future to be populated by rational, peaceful people who only use force to defend? Do you want it to be populated by those driven by hatred that will kill anyone who thinks differently? Your choice. Right now you are not headed down a path of survival, for those who will not defend and their offspring will die. Those who are tougher and more determined will populate the future. Think about it. May not be fair. You may want to take your toys and go home. But – that is the way the world works. Think about it.

When the other guy’s goal is your death, non-resistance is always fatal. This may fit your individual philosophy. It doesn’t fit mine. I don’t think it is very noble to let a serial killer get his perverted sexual thrills by one’s pain and death. I would resist. I would not stand by and let a member of my family die horribly and painfully to satisfy another’s wishes. I would resist. I will not stand by while my fellow citizens are brutally butchered because they do not agree with some sick, mad bastard’s view of what their religion should be. I will resist. I will not stand by while other people are enslaved or tortured or brutalized to satisfy another group’s whims. I will resist – with force.

Hey lefties – a question. Why are you all emotional about Darfur? Yes, the Moslem Sudanese government is sponsoring horrible acts of brutality. You know – the standard mix – rape, torture, murder, on men, women, children. So. I see. OK. But why was there no outcry from the left during the Second Sudanese Civil War when 1.9 million were brutally slaughtered and over 4 million driven from their lands? Is it because the victims at Darfur are Moslems and the victims in the Second Civil War were Christian? I hope you guys see that I don’t object to going in to kick the Sudanese Government into some kind of civilized behavior, or changing it. I don’t mind protecting the innocent of Darfur. I do object to not being consistent. I do object to your – I hope unconscious – bigotry against Christians. There’s a damn sight more Christian victims of Moslem cruelty than there have ever been Moslem victims of Christians. I do want to see some of you libs that want us to send the military into Darfur to get off your sanctimonious asses and put your lives on the line for the protection of these people. Enlist. Put your life where your mouth is. Sauce for the goose.

Here’s a lovely quote from George Orwell:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Notes on Nationalism, May 1945

The only addition that I would make is that the thing admired now seems to be the failed socialist system. The libs in this country are still hoopee-hollering for socialized medicine and the Brits are drafting ways to return to private medicine. There is no country practicing socialized medicine successfully today.

It seems to me that Amnesty International talks more about US ‘atrocities’ than they do murder and torture of the innocent practiced as policy by other nations. I will not pay any attention to this crap nor believe them until they start impartially reporting facts instead of showing their hatred of our western democracies.

Hey righties – (you didn’t think I only kick lefties, did you?) – yes, you are on the right general track. Protect our own. Good. Defeat those who would kill us. Good. But – don’t demonize anyone who disagrees with you. This leads you to think that the end always justifies the means. That is true – only if you are a soulless animal. Your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. It is ok to have civil discourse with opponents. It is ok to disagree. Is also ok to kill those who would kill you. But – remember – the populous does not always reflect the murderous desires of their mad leaders. They may be ordinary people caught up in a tidal wave of insanity. Fight to victory – yes. But be rational and compassionate when the victory is won. Be greater in victory than in battle. Don’t try to shove your beliefs on everyone. We are not robots. We have free will. Let us exercise that as civilized humans. A civilized human will fight to victory in response to aggression, but is not the aggressor.

Some Ruminations on Warfare –

10 November 07

Just some rather superficial observations. When I was much younger I studied von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, strategy, tactics, legal theory of war and all that sort of stuff. If I drug in all that went behind these ruminations, I’d have a thick book instead of a short essay.

Observation the first: Whenever some theory of war as fought by some set of rules comes about, someone who does not play by the rules kicks butt. The knights and heavy cavalry had it reasonably well until people figured out grouped pikes – yes, the phalanx was revived. Then the unsporting Brit peasants started using bows. This was rough on knights and horses.

Observation the second: When a bunch of civilians is involved with the how, the result is chaos and loss. It is quite correct for the ruling civilians to say what the objectives are. For a nation, military force is an instrument of national policy. Therefore the ruling civilians can say what the objective is, the mistake is to allow the civilians to dictate how the war is fought. Look at the abortion that jackass Carter made of the Iranian hostage rescues. Yeah, it was Jimmy that micro-managed those soldier’s deaths and failure. The Congress is following the same path to failure. If you give the military an assignment, get out of the way and let them do their jobs.

Observation the third: Unless great care is taken, a military ossifies in peaceful times and loses the ability to think flexibly. It has been observed numerous times that we always fight the last war for the first half of the next war. Great daring is not the path to promotion in peacetime. Great tacticians are not trusted by bean counters and are cut off at the knees during the peacetime preceding the next war.

Observation the fourth: Most of the America hating people of this country have migrated to the left. These people will not only not serve in a voluntary military, they will do their dead level best to tear down the military so that no one will defend our country and its interests.

When a society loses the will to defend itself, it will surely fall. I saw an interview on FOX news where a woman was suing to prevent the military from recruiting in schools. Her cowardly son, of course, would not even consider service. When she was asked if we should even have a military, she would not answer. I suspect that she knew that she would be revealed as the fool that she is. Make no mistake – the worst enemies of this country are not those external who will do the conquering. The worst are the cowards and traitors who are rotting from within. The irony is that these adamant proclaimers of their ‘rights’ are the ones who will kiss the invader’s butts the fastest. Or die. I hope you America hating libs enjoy bowing down, for your conquerors will require that you not only bow to Allah, but you also bow to your masters as the slaves you will be. You will have brought it on yourselves and your children. I will bet the farm that you don’t have the guts to stand up to your Moslem conquerors and insist on your ‘rights’. Try telling them that you have the right to your own opinion.

There is not a country in the world that has any resources worth mentioning that can ‘study war no more’. As surely as they try that, some envious neighbor will take those resources. It is only by being willing to fight an invader that invasion is prevented. Conquest is not dead in the world.

The other thing to worry about is hatred. If a country or a people is viewed as an object of hatred, someone will inevitably try to remove the hated object from the planet. Ask the Jews about that. You can also ask the various tribes in Africa that have been targeted for extermination by their neighbors. The only thing that will stop genocide is military force.

Oh yes, let’s have the UN police the world. Well, the UN will not function even at its current incompetent level without US tax dollars and US troops. The UN ‘peacekeepers’ have committed some of the worst acts in history. The Belgians serving in Somalia regularly tortured children. Belgium is part of the ‘civilized’ European Union that regularly lectures us about ‘civilized behavior’. Do you libs really want people like that dictating your behavior? I don’t. I say that you people will either wake up or you will see modern civilization go up in smoke.

BTW – one particular incident in which two Belgian soldiers roasted a child over a fire and was caught on film was dismissed by the UN as “a form of playing without violence”. Really? It is nice to know that the UN considers it ok to roast someone. It isn’t violence, it’s just playing. The UN’s policy is to not embarrass member nations..

You don’t see stuff like that in the liberal US news media, they are too busy digging up any dirt they can on our country. According to the liberal media it is inhumane to keep killers taken on the battlefield at Gitmo, and you have certainly heard a load about that. But you haven’t heard beans about UN atrocities. Check it out. It happens. It’s real. Now tell me once again how we don’t need a military, the UN or Santa Claus will protect us.

Oh yeah, we have passed beyond all that. Well, we only have to look within our own society to see that people have not changed since the dawn of time. We can see gays that have been brutally murdered for being gay. Blacks have been killed by whites for being black. Whites have been killed by blacks for being white. People are routinely murdered for less than twenty dollars. Nations are not any different. The fact is that the psycho nations will kill for little or no reason. We cannot stop murder in this country by talking nice to the murderers. We cannot stop a psycho people by caving in or talking nice. It someone wishes you dead, you can only stop that happening by force. Or by running far enough away. We haven’t yet figured how to pick up a country and move it into hiding. Only the military option will keep you alive and free.

Oh well, we deserve whatever bad happens to us. 9/11 was our own fault. People don’t attack unless provoked. I say again, look at crime. According to this logic, the women raped and tortured to death asked for it. The taxi driver brutally murdered was the one at fault. The convenience store clerk killed for pocket change was the aggressor. I guess I’m just too stupid to see that. I believe that aggressors should be stopped. You can’t do that without organized force. That’s called a military. They are still necessary.

Military –

28 August 07

My country, right or wrong!
My country, love it or leave it!

We’ll come back to these in a minute. First – let’s get some qualifications out of the way. I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1966 and had to get my mother’s signature. I was too young. I didn’t have a draft card, not old enough. I didn’t get a draft card until after discharge. My kid brother was in the Air Force. My oldest son was 12 years in the Army. My daughter was 3 years in the Army – Tank Corps. Cutest little combat boots you ever saw. My youngest was 6 years in the Navy as a Marine Corps Medic. My Godson was 6 years Navy on the Nimitz. My father was Navy WWII. My uncle was Army Air Corp WWII, my grandfather was bird colonel, Army, WWII and 1st Lt. WWI. To my knowledge there has never been a member of my family that was drafted. Ever. We always volunteered. (My wife’s family has just as much service).

I think that the above should provide my blue ribbon credentials to the most skeptical and hard-line of right-wingers. Therefore, I will commence to bloviate. BTW – Bill O’Reilly did not invent this handy verb. It shows up in slang dictionaries of the 19th century and was very popular in the early part of the 20th century. (Damn – it’s hard to remember that we’re in the 21st!)

In R.A. Heinlein’s turgid opus (which is still too short) Time Enough for Love, in the Tale of the Lazy Man, or some such, we have a lazy hero who joins the military. I think I remember the character’s name as David. Anyway, to his horror, a war breaks out. Now the sentiment of the character is that an army should be so big and fierce and nasty that no one would think of attacking. This may be the best description that there ever was. It is the proper function of a good military to never have to shed blood. There is no peacenik in the world that hates war any more than a combat soldier who has actually been there. Only a few nutcases actually want war. Most of these nutcases haven’t actually been there before. A rational soldier wants peacetime duty, but is prepared to defend his beloved country with his life, if necessary. But only as a last resort. If the military has to kill and die, the politicians and diplomats have failed. Most would just like to do their duty and go home to their families.

The left likes to view the military as an outmoded and unnecessary expense. Said money would be better spent on the dole. Libs like to look out and see victims that can be helped by the government. Truth is, the dole doesn’t relieve poverty, it creates it. There is no way for any government to solve social problems. They can only make them worse. Anyway, lib congresses and administrations weaken the military and encourage the crazies of the world to poke at us. This, in turn, costs lives and money while we fumble for a response. Sounds a whole lot like Rome in the 6th century.

Now, back to the opening credits. My country, right of wrong! Not exactly. In the Corp (and all services), one of the first things that you are taught is the difference between a legal and an illegal order. You must not obey an illegal order! Ever. Period. There is also a chain of command procedure to protest even legal orders that are against your conscience – in other than combat conditions. If you disobey a legal order in combat you may be shot on the spot. There is no time for debate when the shooting is going on.
Generally, it is not the role of the individual soldier to determine the morality of a war. The President and the Congress have that role. The soldier must simply obey all legal orders. If ordered to torture, murder, rob, what ever, it must not be done, as these would be illegal orders. But, if you do disobey an order you better be right. With witnesses.

Similarly, as citizens, we may make our views known when we think that our country is heading into a morally incorrect position. And, indeed, we not only have the right to voice our views, we have the moral obligation to do so when we see things that are wrong. Now, since none of us is God and can see into another’s heart, the FFs decided that everyone, including the nuts, should have the blessing of free speech. There are some rare exceptions. The old shouting fire in a crowded theater is just the obvious example. Use your mind, you can think of others.

My country, right or wrong! Yes, true. But we must always be vigilant to insure that we stay right.

My country, love it or leave it! OK, this one I pretty much buy. But, as usual, I have to set terms. There is a difference between loving someone and approving of all of their actions. In Church terms, hate the sin; but – love the sinner. Now if you truly love this country and wish nothing but the best for it and all its citizens, feel free to stay and criticize constructively. Your contributions are valuable, even if you are silly enough to disagree with me (What a preposterous notion). But don’t whine, it doesn’t become you.

Contrariwise – it you do not love this country and wish the continuation of its people and existence – leave. Go away. If you hate us, go where we are not. If you wish to piss in your own cereal – do so. But don’t try to piss in mine. I might just react in a way that will be unpleasing to you. If you are anything other than scum, some other country that shares your values will take you gladly. If no other country will have you, perhaps you might want to reevaluate you life and your opinions. If no other country shares your values – is everyone in the world out of step but you?

Post-thought. When I got out of the Corps and back on the street, we were being called baby-killers and spat upon. I never knew any combat soldier that killed babies deliberately. The very nasty lib feminist activists who were willing to crucify us for defending our ally (we had treaties) were the ones who firmly advocated and practiced, after Roe v. Wade, abortion. Who is the baby killer?

MASH and Korea and the Nam –

4 August 07

I like MASH. Both the movie and the TV show. As everyone and his brother has noted, this is one of the few where a great movie was bested by an even better TV show. MASH was originally a short novel by a doctor who served in Korea in a MASH unit.

The MASH units were started in 1945, the brainchild of Dr. Michael E. DeBakey. The idea was that the closer to the battle wounds were treated, the better the healing would be. It worked. DeBakey may have been a tactless asshole that people hated to be around, but he was brilliant and he was right. The last MASH unit was disbanded in 2006. Pretty fair run. One place that the TV series is wrong is the way they showed triage. The easy cases were done first. Those that wouldn’t make it were set aside and given as much pain-killer as they needed. You did not waste time on hopeless cases. But they were right about the success rate. Very high. Like 96% survival.

Richard Hooker’s novel was just barely used for the movie. You know Hollywood can’t stand to do a book as written. Besides, Robert Altman hated the book and the original screenplay and wanted to do something about Vietnam anyway. There was mucho friction on the set with the major actors despising the director.

However, the movie was a success. Funny, irreverent, vaguely subversive. All the characteristics needed for the post-hippie anti-Vietnam crowd. I found it entertaining, on the whole.

The TV series was another kettle of fish. Made much later, there was not even the faintest effort to subdue the totally anti-military and anti-Vietnam tenor, even though the series continued long after the US withdrew from Vietnam. I find most of the shows amusing, some extremely funny, but when they get heavy-handed in their liberal moralizing it is a major turnoff. The favorite tactic used was to have someone sympathetic ask in some soulful, thoughtful manner “why are we here?” Then to have some objectionable jackass who theoretically represented a conservative, usually Frank Burns, give some off the wall business about protecting the world from the communists. Bullshit. We were in Korea because the North Koreans had invaded South Korea. Totally unprovoked. War of conquest. The leader of North Korea was Kim Il-sung, father of the current Kim Jung Il. South Korea did what the libs tell us they want nations to do. They squawked to the UN for help. Didn’t Kerry make a big thing about only UN actions being good – no unilateral activity? BTW – Harry Truman – DEMOCRAT – president at the time. Well, anyway, the UN sent troops to free South Korea. The US was part of that coalition. Maybe the biggest part, but we were not there as the US, we were there as the UN. You know – police action. Like the dems keep telling us to do with terrorists. Police, not army. Contain – not defeat. Anyway, the US provided the majority of the forces and did the majority of the combat. We floundered for 3 years being politically correct, and then withdrew when the UN told us to. Leaving North Korea undefeated. It is over 50 years later and we will still have to deal with this starving country and its psycho troglodyte leader. Contrast that with South Korea, plenty to eat. Lots of jobs, lots of money. If we had defeated North Korea and rebuilt it, then it would be just as fat and prosperous as South Korea. It’s the same peninsula, for Heaven’s sake.

Vietnam –
Well, what can I say. Damn near everything the left thinks it knows about the Nam is wrong. First of all, we put troops into the Nam in 1950. Harry Truman – DEMOCRAT – president at the time. The French had pretty well bitched the whole colonial thing in Vietnam, and the rebels were giving them fits. You do remember the French? Yeah, the ones whose asses we’ve save so many times over the last 100 years. Yeah, the ones that hate us today. You now, French gratitude. Anyway, Harry sent a few troops over as advisors. Eisenhower inherited the mess, but kept troops to 500 during his presidency. The French ran away about 1956, and our troops were left to try to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. Train. Not fight. Although we did suffer some casualties. I knew a fellow in the mid-60s that was wounded in Saigon in 1957. Grenade. Took a bit of shrapnel in the legs. In 1960 John F. Kennedy – St. Jack to the dems – increased the troops from 500 to 16,000. How was that the Republicans? Lyndon Baines Johnson – so crooked he made Tricky Dicky look like a choir boy – really escalated the war. After solemnly promising that he would not send American boys over there to die. How is it that the left thinks that George W. is the worse liar? How is it that Republicans are war-mongers? If traitors like Kerry and Fonda and the whole peacenik movement had not been shoring up morale in North Vietnam, they would have surrendered about 1969 or 70. Not my opinion. Check the statements of the North Vietnamese officials of the time recorded for their war museum. If we had gone ahead and finished winning that war, then Vietnam would be a strong and free and staunch an ally as Japan is now. I have a Vietnamese friend who was “re-educated” three times – that translates as prison/concentration camp, with torture and overwork – after we abandoned the country before he could escape to America. He loves it here, but still feels betrayed that we broke our promises to South Vietnam.

The liberals of this country got us into both Korea and Vietnam. Both were “police actions” instead of wars that we meant to win. Both were blessed by the UN. Our buddies the French got us into the Nam. Just what the hell does the left expect if they diddle and micro manage the military like the stupids in Congress are trying to do now.

Look, no rational human wants a war if there are any other options. But – if you get in one, get in. Win. In as hard and fast a manner as possible. Don’t second guess the military. They don’t ask for these horrible wars. But if you politicians start one – get the hell out of the way and let the experts win it as fast as possible. Patten knew that you took more casualties by allowing an enemy to pin you down than you would take if you got up and charged at the right time. Politicians can never know the right time. A tried and true warrior does. Get out of his way. Or you will get him and his men killed. Then you can whine about the horrible number of dead – that you are responsible for.

%d bloggers like this: