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.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:42 AM
5 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Post a Comment
<< Home