Gut Rumbles
 

August 14, 2005

read and enjoy

I'll admit--- sometimes my comments are more interesting than my blog. You can see that fact right here.

Let me attempt to explain what I meant in that post (I already know that the leftists lunatics won't understand, but maybe some of you other people will). My father and mother weren't old enough to become involved in WWII, but they participated in scrap metal drives, Victory Gardens and everything else they could do to help the war effort.

My mama "adopted" a Marine and wrote him a letter every week until he was killed on Tarawa. She never met the boy, he never knew her, but I'll bet he enjoyed those letters. Mama cried when he died.

Hillbillies are patriotic and they ain't afraid of a fight. Harlan County gave up more than its fair share of young men, both in WWII and Korea. And I wasn't kidding about everybody watching that black car come down the road, and waiting to see where it would stop.

Everybody with a son in service prayed that it wouldn't stop HERE, but sometimes it did. When that happened, you handled it with as much dignity and grace as you could manage.

What has happened to that kind of thinking? Maybe hillbillies were more accustomed to death than most folks, but this got-dam whining I hear today is intolerable to me. If we had listened to the voices of today's leftists in our past, we'd all be wiping milk-puke off our chins and speaking German. IF the Germans gave us any milk.

War is NOT a pretty thing. But it's better to fight one and win than refuse to fight. I've not seen a damned thing in this life that came easy. If it was easy, any asshole could do it and it's not worth fighting for.

But some things are. We're looking at that situation right now.

Comments

Why are you so insistent on conflating the war in Iraq with WWII?

I know that black car, except in my day it was a brown Fury and a different war. It is always a tragedy when a young life is cut short for *any* reason. However, I was raised to believe that while some things are worth dieing for we have an obligation to inform ourselves and make our own decisions.

I, and some 60% of Americans according to recent polls, have made the decision that the the war in Iraq is not worth another American life. What is so hard to understand about this? It doesn't mean that we are cowards or are unwilling to defend our way of life. All it means is that we have come to the conclusion that this not a just war and it is not a war worthy of contributing our children to.

Posted by: Zappatista on August 14, 2005 09:16 PM

There is no honor in invading and occuping Iraq.

Rob, you're out of your mind if you think that.

And, you demean those who fought WWII by trying to compare the two.

You're too smart not to understand that. Or two brainwashed by wingnut rhetoric to make the distinction.

Bush would like you to believe there was some vital national interest in invading Iraq. But there isn't.

You're a smart guy--why don't you see that?

Posted by: Randall on August 14, 2005 09:21 PM

What has happened to that kind of thinking? Maybe hillbillies were more accustomed to death than most folks, but this got-dam whining I hear today is intolerable to me.

When it's a just cause, most Americans will be behind it. I don't think you'll find many American's that were against the war in Afghanistan. We were attacked. We were punishing those that were aggressors.

Iraq has no such justification. We weren't attacked by them, they didn't pose any credible danger to us nor to their their neighbors, and they had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Why do YOU have such difficulty understanding THAT?

Posted by: The Other Mike S on August 14, 2005 09:26 PM

Wow I'm confused, this post is about slavery and the civil war, right? Why are the trolls carping about Iraq again?

Look we're in Iraq, can you get on board now, please? We're there we'll come home when the mission is done. Not before. Why is that so fuckin' hard to understand? I am so confused by the leftist agenda.

Posted by: Alli on August 14, 2005 09:42 PM

It's whining, Alli. That's what the left does best anymore. In fact that's ALL it does.

Posted by: Acidman on August 14, 2005 09:49 PM

Why are you so insistent on conflating the war in Iraq with WWII?

Why do moonbats fear freedom of speech and thought?

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 09:54 PM

Not the brightest bulb in the bunch, are you Alli?

The post starts with a reference to a thread concering the war in Iraq. It's that blue thing in caps right at the top. C'mon now, look hard, you can find it.

Look we're in Iraq, can you get on board now, please?

Uh, no. Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't mean it should be compounded -- hell, we'd all be married to our first wives (or husbands) if that was the case.

We're there we'll come home when the mission is done.

Okay. Now tell me what the mission is, because, you see, it seems to keep changing.

Saddam, gone. Cool. Constitution, written. Excellent. Free elections, over with. Great.

What was that mission again?

Posted by: Zappatista on August 14, 2005 09:55 PM

Did someone upset Zapp-hole again?

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 09:57 PM

We were attacked.

Other Mike,
Your disregarding the attacks on coalition aircraft for nearly 13 years by Saddam's IADS.

That itself justified war as far as I'm concerned. The rest is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 10:02 PM

Gordon... fer cryin' out loud, don't you get bored.

You, and others I'm sure, want to dismiss me as a troll. I can live with that and Rob can smack me down with the ban-hammer anytime he wants. However, I at least make an attempt to do something other than spit out pithy little one-liners attacking other people.

Dude, your an adult... insulting strangers on the web from the comfort of your easy chair. Don't you feel a little silly?

P.S. Can you call me "cunt-breath" again? My guests are still laughing.

Posted by: Zappatista on August 14, 2005 10:03 PM

Zapp honey I think you're the one thats bored, not Gordon. If you have guests why are you trying to argue with us? I don't think you can call inner voices guests, but to each their own.

And i stand corrected, I was reading the post above this one and commenting here earlier. Oops. I fucked up, sue me.

Posted by: Alli on August 14, 2005 10:07 PM

You, and others I'm sure, want to dismiss me as a troll.

Dismiss you as a troll? What a clever play of words. Newsflash - you ARE a troll. On the referenced thread to this post you logged on and mocked attacks against our troops and accused our CINC if being a liar just to get kicks. That's what a troll does.

least make an attempt to do something other than spit out pithy little one-liners attacking other people.

I do, douche bag. On top of bitchslapping you, I tear apart any semblence of an argument you present while providing my own thoughts in the meanwhile.

Hell,in the last thread I called you out and you even admitted you couldn't prove anyhting you said let alone stand behind it.

Unlike yourself, I stand behind my mealy mouth. Alongside the bitchslap to the likes of yourself I provide opinion, fact, and ananlytical thought. That is, as opposed to your weak trolls, whimpers, and clever aversion to following through on a topic.

Now run alon and get those diapers changed, I think you shit yourself again.

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 10:14 PM

I don't think you can call inner voices guests, but to each their own.

LMAO.

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 10:17 PM

Come on, Gordon. You and I both know that Bush would NEVER have been able to sell a full-scale invasion of Iraq to Congress and the American people because we had jets fired upon by SAMs.

Send wave after wave of Tomahawks up Saddam's ass (ala Reagan and Tripoli); aggressively go after the SAMs; start blowing up Iraqi command and control. Any or all of those would have made sense. 150,000 troops is just insane.

Anyway, my response was more to answer Rob's question about why people are against this war. In short, we don't think it is just.

Posted by: The Other Mike S on August 14, 2005 10:28 PM

Other Mike,
Actually with Libya we sent in waves of Carrier Air Wings and several wings from the Air Force.

We even took out his palace.

We never heard from Kaddaffi again until his knees were knocking after he watched Saddam lose his grip to power in a matter of days.

Like you're just saying it's unjust, I'm simply saying I think it is.

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 10:40 PM

Exactly. That's what I'm saying we should have done with Saddam. Put the fear of God into the little pissant. A full scale invasion was not necessary.

Posted by: The Other Mike S on August 14, 2005 10:49 PM

Depends on your objective.

Posted by: gordon the magnificent on August 14, 2005 11:39 PM

Hey Zap, you should try to study history. Before WWII, when Hitler was furiously rearming (and it was obvious to some folks like Churchill) that Hitler meant to conquer Europe by force, most folks like Neville Chamberlain tried to look the other way and pretend that Hitler was really a nice guy, after all. IF Britain and France had pre-emptively attacked Germany in the late 1930s, the massive war from 1939-1945 in Europe could have been averted. True, there would have been casualties, but perhaps 50,000,000 lives could have been saved.

The same thing is happening today, except Bush is doing the right thing and "nipping it in the bud," whereas most of the left (whom I would presume would ALL fail any basic history test) want to play ostrich and hide their heads in the sand and pretend there really arean't a bunch of fanatical Islamists out there who would like to kill all of us "non-believers" in the rest of the world. You can fight a relatively small war now, or a much larger war later. You CAN'T, however, fight NO war.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."

Posted by: Chico Panther on August 15, 2005 12:58 AM

Exactly. That's what I'm saying we should have done with Saddam. Put the fear of God into the little pissant. A full scale invasion was not necessary.

Oddly enough, Other Mike S, Bill Clinton agreed with you, or at least said he did in 1998. Unfortunately, it was mostly talk.

Posted by: Juliette on August 15, 2005 01:42 AM

Why did Other Mike have to go all the way back to Reagan. He could have mentioned Clinton's air attack on Iraq. I was going to include a link to his reasons for it but Juliette beat me to it.

Does anyone remember the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). It made regime change in Iraq U.S. public policy. It was a bipartisan Congressional effort and Clinton signed it into law.

I suppose Kosovo is down the memory hole too. We still have troops there, BTW. Where are the protestors?

Posted by: StinKerr on August 15, 2005 04:19 AM

On 9/11/01 the world changed. Americans (some) finally had to face the fact we were in a war. A religious/cultural war. Some of those awakened got lazy/scared and decided to go back to their napping from reality.

Bush 1 should have let Schwarzkopf destroy Saddams Republican Guard units and Saddam would probably have lost his power, violently. Instead we negotiated. America always gets screwed when we negotiate.

Bush 2 launched an assault on the Taliban in Afghanistan. That was one of several havens of militant Islam. The Taliban were neutralized.

The World was screeching about Saddams wmds. Please list the non-muslim nations saying Iraq did NOT have wmds. Even the UN thought he had them, somewhere

Iraq is another haven of militant islam. We could have attacked Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Marseille France, Dearborn Michigan. Iraq was the best choice tactically and strategically. Many reasons-geography, poor military, bad leadership, opposition available, etc.

Right after 9/11, many Americans screeching, "Do something, attack the bad guys." OK, we are doing that. Many of the same attack screechers now whining, "War is bad, let's talk (negotiate)".

We are killing large quantities of islamic turds "over there". It is disruptive to the muslim holy war against the world "over there". We have a strategic prescence for further action if needed "over there". Our effort "over there" may encourage a stronger opposition "over there" to the militant bunch by the more secular, leaning to the West bunch.

They may well hit us again here in America, hard. What are you anti war folks going to require then? What will you do to help? Will you join in closing the mosques, deporting militant imammas(imans)? Will you be back to demanding more(and offering less)? Will you say we didn't do enough, we did it all wrong?

We are in a religious/cultural war(sorry Bush 2, it is religious). It is fought as a terrorist and guerilla war and conventionally. It will take a long time, like a bad commute to you yuppies.
Like the stock market it will give us up and down events.

I hope we don't decide to restrict our war efforts too much to placate the anti war bunch. In Vietnam we could have won by taking that war north. The anti war movement was so vocal and our political leadership so damn pussy, we stagnated to a poor draw and eventual defeat. It scares me now that so much of our present leadership were the protesters and draft dodgers of the Vietnam era.

The failure of Bush2 to close/secure our borders/coasts scares me into thinking that economic interests and minority whining still carry too much weight over survival interests. My point being again that negotiating is a sign of weakness when you are at war.

Posted by: TomR on August 15, 2005 06:12 AM


This idea of fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them here is pure nonsense. Where is "over there"? Al Qaeda is operating in over 40 countries around the world with even larger cells most likely already here in the U.S.. The number of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq is minimal in comparison and limited to only those that have gone there to support the insurgency against the occupiers (us). Why is it such a difficult concept to understand that our actions in Iraq are only CREATING more terrorists in joining the jihad against America? If we had continued to focus our military strength on going after bin Laden three years ago, then the jihadist leadership would have been greatly diminished and we would not have alienated allies around the world and we would not be going at this mostly alone in Iraq. We are never going to kill off all those who now hate America for invading and occupying a muslim nation that posed no threat to our security. The opportunity to defeat terrorism was undermined by Bush's incredibly idiotic decision to fight a war in Iraq, especially without a plan to secure the country after invasion. Now it's falling apart and Iraq is becoming a training ground for new jihadists that are returning home to neighboring countries and pose a far greater terroristic threat than they ever did originally. Iraq will prove to be a huge blunder in the long run. For those who believe that invading Iraq to provide security for us here in America against potential WMD threats, I have a question. Why would we talk about bringing troops home from the Middle East at a time when Iran is now producing WMD's if that was our main concern with Iraq? It makes no sense. Think about it.

Posted by: Waymor on August 16, 2005 05:30 AM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.