Well, I will say this soldier is a little (understanement here) pissed at the Democrats of this country and with good reason.
Once again, when reading this, ask yourself: Is this ME he is talking about? If you read it, and end up red faced and embarrassed and then rush into the state of anger, then it probably IS you he is talking about. Instead of following those emotions, try listening to the soldier, try understanding that he DOES know more than those of you that sit on your asses and watch CNN and swallow everything they say, hook, line and sinker. Perhaps it is time to rethink your position or do you not trust the troops? The soldiers? The ones ON THE GROUND?
From SapperSgt to the Democrats:
Damn the antiwar movement to hell, (with Profanity).
Now, I've been waiting to write about this story for a while, so that hopefully I would calm down and not publically vent my overwhelming urge to kill.
Why am I pissed?
Aside from the repeated personal insults and indignities, it has now come out, on the front page of the New York Times, proof that the antiwar movement in the United States is built on knowningly lying to the American people.
Let me quote the New York Times story in question. You all know about it. It's the "George Bush is such a chimp that he posted nuclear weapon plans on the internet" story.
"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
OK, maybe I'm just an illiterate who is so stupid that I'm "stuck" in Iraq, but even I can take 2002, add one year, and come up with 2003.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember 2003 as the year we rolled in an kicked over Mr. Hussein's little setup here based on the imminent danger of developing nuclear weapons. The illustrious editorial board of the New York Times and the Democratic Party have declared repeatedly that this argument was fraudulent, dishonest, etc.
You all know that meme underlying the antiwar movement?
"George Bush lied to the American People. There was no WMD program at all. No threat to America. No nuclear weapons program."
It is impossible to believe this and also believe:
"Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums..."
You cannot believe both things! It is impossible, unless you are a Democrat and have the mental flexibility to believe that proposition a and proposition not-a are both simultaneously true. Logic is. . . confining, with all those rules made up by Dead White Males.
Integrity is a foreign concept to some of these people.
When will the Democrats and their Media allies admit their lies, deceit, and failure? Yeah, that would be sometime after the heat death of the universe. Anything is acceptable to gain power, telling two contradictory stories at the same time is small potatos.
His previous entry is just as good.
How to be a Good Democrat.
1. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese & North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E.Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and really a very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese government is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
21. You have to believe that this letter is part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
One more from SapperSgt:
War is an act of force intended to compell the enemy to do our will. War is the utimate argument of states, and the means to settle international disputes when other means are inadequate or exhausted. War is as normal a state of international affairs as is peace, and based on the frequency of states of war historically is actually more normative than peace. The normalcy and necessity of war are rooted in human nature and are universal across all societial organizations and among all cultures.
What is the American view of war?
War is an abberation caused when a small cabal of evil men takes charge of a foreign nation and only as a "last resort". War is always directed against this handful of leaders and those evil men who support them. War is a moral crusade of good against evil, and when a war is concluded, it is to be concluded by the imposition of a permenant peace based on the installation of leaders who are "democratic" and "peaceful".
Implications:
Because Americans believe that war is an abberant state of affairs, Americans refuse to believe in the reality and inevitablity of war. Americans will avoid preparing for war, thinking of war, or planning for war. Due to the inability of Americans to accept the consequences of their behaviors, when the war comes the inevitable shortcomings will be blamed on the politicians in office at the start of the war, regardless of circumstances.
Because Americans believe that all people are inherent peaceful unless misled by evil leaders, they do not recognize that conflicts of interest between societies exist which cannot be resolved by negotiation.
Americans confuse the terms "democratic" or "peaceful" with "good". Conversely, "belligerant" or "undemocratic" is always identified with "evil". The confusion this creates is obvious.
Because Americans believe that war is an abberation caused by evil and met with a great crusade like that of the Allied Powers against Germany, they do not recognize nor understand other forms of warfare.
Corrollary to the last statement: Because Americans do not understand guerilla, asymetric, or terrorist method of warfare, they mythologize them in a variety of ways. Hence the various arguments that terrorism is a purely law enforcement matter, or that asymetric warfare is inherently unanswerable.
Because Americans concieve of warfare as a crusade directed against a cabal of "madmen" in charge of a territory, they are often confused when defeating an army, occupying a territory, and arresting the popularly identified "madmen" does not end a conflict. Conversely, they are confused when a campaign does not end in the arrest and trial of the designated "madmen" because they hide in a cave in Pakistan.
Because warfare is identified as a clash of moral opposites, stupidities associated with the phrase "if they are not for us, they are against us" and its opposite abound. Pakistan is an ally of convenience which permitted the United States to use its territory under threat. Saudi Arabia is a morass of conflicting interests of different elements of the incredibly corrupt and undemocratic Royal family, a significant portion of which is actually part of "the enemy" and other parts of which merely pander to the enemy.
Further thoughts along these lines to follow.
Here is the link to his blog... read through it and understand these are our soldiers, not our politicians and the question YOU should be asking yourself, isn't whether we should be there or who made what mistakes, but rather, are our soldiers who are there on the ground telling us the truth or are our politicians? Are the soldiers the honest ones or is our media?
Try being honest with yourself and you might still have time to earn our soldiers respect after all.
Part 1 "Soldiers Speak out--LOUDLY"
Part 2 "Soldiers Keep Speaking"
Part 4 "American Soldier Speaks to Anti-War Protesters".