Carol Platt Liebau: All War Is Hell

Saturday, June 03, 2006

All War Is Hell




All war is hell.







In this Washington Post piece, Frank Schaeffer reminds us of this inevitable fact. But take a look at the picture above, and then decide whether the war on terror is worth it, despite the isolated incidences of malfeasance and/or incompetence.

At his piece's conclusion, Schaeffer unfortunately succumbs to a spot of Michael Moore-ism, arguing that the problem is that there aren't enough children of elected officials serving.

Really? Try asking my old boss, U.S. Senator Christopher S. ("Kit") Bond, whose son, Sam, has served honorably as a Marine intelligence officer in Iraq. Or any of these elected officials.

It's also worth noting that more of the "elites" -- i.e. young people like the children of federal legislators -- might find their way into the military if ROTC were returned to the campuses of elite private universities (Harvard, for example, springs to mind).

In the meantime, we'll keep praying for Schaeffer's child, who's fighting in Iraq -- and everyone else's.

14 Comments:

Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:03 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Hmm I believe it says something about innocent untill proven guilty? But then Mr. Murtha appointed himself Judge and the NY Times Jury.

Lets wait and see what the Marines decide?

What about the $30,000 that the "Witnesses" were supossedly given? But thats the other side.

Lets wait and let Military Justice work.

1:24 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:26 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

It's always awful to remember the events on that day in 2001.

But it's also awful to assume that the stupidity going on in Iraq had something to do with it.

Saddam had nothing... NOTHING... to do with 9/11. Invading Iraq did nothing... NOTHING... to stop the spread of terrorism.

The village idiot, Saddam, is in jail. Osama Bin Laden is still out there.

If you look at the time that elapsed between the attack on Pearl Harbour and the day Japan surrendered, you'll find that it took America in the 1940s a lot less time to eliminate the threat than what George Bush has done since 9/11.

Osama is still free. The president is an incompetent babboon.

8:22 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

Since we're sharing pictures:

http://www.chris-floyd.com/march/

Where is Bin Laden?

8:27 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Really? Duh!! But 9/11 was our impetus to really fight the war on terror that had already been declared years before. And faust and oversight insist on forgetting that Bush declared war on terror and those countries that support it. Iraq was one of those countries. Plus, there were just a few ignored UN resolutions for which kicking Hussein's ass was the "or else". Add to that the shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, and of course, we now know of more direct support and plans for reconstituting his WMD programs. Try paying attention to more than the Michael Moore types and you'll learn something.

11:39 PM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:37 AM  
Blogger Dr Faust said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:51 AM  
Blogger amber said...

Faust, I think you are on the wrong blog. One terrorist attack: The Iraqi's targetted our planes which were doing what the UN directed them to do, they were monitering. They repetedly tried and succeded at least once to shoot them down (in case you are unclear on what that means, that is an act of war). Also, it has been proven that Sadam allowed Al-Qaeda to train in Iraq. They also proved that Sadam and Bin Laden had numerous conversations with each other. Have you listened to the tapes recently released to the media of Sadam? Iraq also attempted to assassinate our president. So, which one of those does not qualify in your mind to be a terrorist attack? Having been to the mid east, not Iraq, and having seen the hatred they have for life, I know it is a knoble fight. I also have not spoken to one person who has been in the middle east, unprotected (as I was) who does not agree with us being in Iraq. The media is a protected group, they do not see what the people are. Arabs are notoriously good at veiling their true thoughts and beliefs, all in the name of good manners. They will mimic back to you what you want to hear.
I see your posts, and I see you want us all to believe that you are of supperior intelligence, however, I know for a fact, you are not. Sorry, but I come from a long line of geniuses. I was in the top 1% in the nation for math, I was a nationl merit scholar, and my father's IQ was 20 points higher than Einstein's, so please, pretend somewhere else, you do not impress me.

4:46 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Amber,

Congratulations on having such a smart father. Ask to borrow his dictionary and look up the word "terrorism." It is, roughly, violence against civillians to achieve a political goal. There is simply no way to declare that Saddam's firing on our planes enforcing the no-fly zone was a terrorist act.

Unless you choose to accept the Bush definition of terrorism -- whatever I say it is.

You can call it an act of war, if you'd like. But it's not terrorism, and was hardly a reason to invade, since we took care of the problem by wiping out his ground defences.

There is of course no "proof" that Saddam allowed al Qaeda to train in his country. That is because it is not true. It is true that Zarqawi did have a camp in Iraq -- it was in northern Iraq, where Saddam had no control. Thanks, among other things, to that no-fly zone.

Did Saddam and Bin Laden have conversations with each other? I don't know, but it's quite possibly true. Roosevelt and Stalin had conversations with each other, as did Hitler and Chamberlain. (And Churchill? I'd guess yes, but can't say for sure.) This does not mean that Roosevelt and Stalin were conspiring together to take over the world, although I'd suspect that you believe they did, nor that Neville Chamberlain was allowing Hitler to set up Nazi training camps in Picadilly Circus.

But really, thank you so much for your insights into the Arab character. Sneaky, shifty. Heck, I bet life is cheap to those folks, too! Bet you say the same thing about illegal immigrants...

5:37 PM  
Blogger amber said...

Did I use the words sneeky or shifty? Nope, I did not. It is well know that Arabs believ it is inhospitable and bad manners to dissagree with their guests and so they parrot back to their guests what they want to hear. That is a difficulty that the US, Polish, Brittish, and Australian militaries face.
In Sadam's tape recordings with Bin Laden, they both speak about using Iraq for a training ground. So, sorry, you are wrong, listen to the tapes, I am sure you can find a copy of them.
Shooting down our planes I said was an act of war, not terrorism, you need to learn to read. That is a perfect reason for retalliation and since it was just one of the many laws broken, I was the perfect reason to go to war.
Allowing Al Quaida to train in Iraq was a serious offense, and it is called harboring terorists. I am not going to argue with you anymore, it is a waste of time arguing with people who fear the truth and criticize anything they do not know. I have refrained from responding to any of you 2's previous posts, but I could not allow you to smear another without it being said that you are crude trolls who are spoiling a nice site to research the news. This is one of those rare political blogs where people can read the news without having to deal with creaps like you two. I will no longer read your filth.

6:33 PM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

Let's just wait five years and see if Iraq is still one stable democracy or three nations like it should have been after WW2. If it is a thriving democracy free of sectarian violence then Bush was right. If it is fractured by civil war into Greater Kurdistan, Sunnite Central Iraq and The United Shi'ite Republic. Then we'll know Bush was wrong. Until then all the arguing in the world isn't going to change minds of people who would rather waste the blood of soldiers than admit the reasons they did or did not do something. And shame on democrats too for being so addicted to the trough of Congressional campaign fundraising that they couldn't stand up to a schoolyard bully and say,"I will not support this war Mr President it is wrong."

Diane Tomlinson
Managing Editor-Terran Affairs
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork

8:27 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

If Iraq "Should have been" 3 nations after WWII, then how would it make Bush "wrong" if it ends up being 3 nations 5 years from now?

7:43 AM  
Blogger RovingWireTap said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google