After several days of catching media reports from various sources, it is of little doubt to me that Cindy Sheehan is just a crazed, anti-war left-winger who happens to be in the media spotlight at present. Her claim is that she is grieving over her son, but the hate-filled vitriol she has been spewing for quite some time is making it clear that she has a different agenda. Perhaps that is why many in her own family do not agree with her position.
All that said, she does have a right to grieve. She does have a right to dissent. She does have a right to protest. However, I think that she does NOT have a conscience or a care about anyone else's soldiers who are in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
Research her past, her thoughts, and her very public remarks and decide for yourself. But also realize that, while unpopular, the war in Iraq is bringing terrorists from everywhere to Iraq to participate. As I have said, I will let the professionals handle that. They have training, knowledge, and working intelligence that none of us (including Cindy) will ever have. And, they are keeping the fight 'over there' and I am pretty certain I prefer it that way. (And, to-be-honest, I bet the protestors do too; or at least they would when the day came that America was struck again.) I am willing to take my chances on Iraq becoming a strong, free, and stabilizing force in the Middle East.
You don't speak for all of America and you do not speak for me, Cindy.
Give war a chance!
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Monday, August 15, 2005
Give War a Chance, Part ii
I must again share some thoughts on the war, today's war, the war on terror.
As I stated just yesterday, I happen to agree with the war in Iraq. I view it as a front and battleground on what is a much larger (and will be a much longer) war. There is obviously erosion on this sentiment from many areas of our societal and political spectrum. Even conservatives are getting squeamish about Iraq and , to me, that means they are squeamish about the war on terror in general.
That brings me to the Cindy Sheehan situation. I will not comment on her initial motives for protesting. She lost her son (in an honorable cause in my estimation) and she is upset and wishes to get answers as to why. Unfortunately, many people may want "answers", but as a representative republic, we elect individuals to provide for us as a nation and we must entrust those individuals with many things...National security being a very important example. And while I disagree with those who are anti-war, I believe that they have a right to protest, even though I am convinced those protests are helping our enemies. One must look into his or her own heart to determine whether their actions are detrimental to our war effort. Political correctness has made it too easy to allow protests to go unfettered, so the self-policing of protestors is the best hope we have.
And then there is Cindy. Today it was reported that she not only wants the US out of Iraq, she also wants Israel out of Palestine, although there really isn't a "Palestine." She won't pay any income taxes until George Bush (who "killed" her son) gives him back. And she also wants "these people" tried for war crimes, sent to jail, impeached, or any combination of the three. What does this have to do with grieving? How will this bring her son back? How does this honor his memory?
Cindy, whether willingly or not, is now just part of the anti-war establishment. You know, the far left. The extreme element that will always "blame America first". It is cliche, but true. This element of America feels that their cause is so noble and just, that they make a gigantic spectacle of their actions and [apparently] feel no regret about the potential negative impact that their actions may have, either to today's soldiers, or tomorrow's, or to any American in the future.
I do not feel we should "cut and run" as so many do at this time. Surrender does not seem to be a logical option to me. We can debate policy, we can question pre-war intelligence, we can accuse the President of lying, or we can unite, as a nation, and get the job done. Iraq or no Iraq, terrorism is a way of life. Getting US troops out of Iraq or the Israelis out of "Palestine" will not stop terrorism. Appeasement may appear to work for a time, but then another attack will be blamed on another president because it happened on "his watch." We need to abandon the rhetoric and decide, do we have the will to fight or not? If we say no today, will we have the strength to say yes when another attack on our soil takes place? Or will we just protest and hope that terrorist go away? Perhaps we can just surrender altogether.
To that, I say no, fight on.
Give war a chance.
As I stated just yesterday, I happen to agree with the war in Iraq. I view it as a front and battleground on what is a much larger (and will be a much longer) war. There is obviously erosion on this sentiment from many areas of our societal and political spectrum. Even conservatives are getting squeamish about Iraq and , to me, that means they are squeamish about the war on terror in general.
That brings me to the Cindy Sheehan situation. I will not comment on her initial motives for protesting. She lost her son (in an honorable cause in my estimation) and she is upset and wishes to get answers as to why. Unfortunately, many people may want "answers", but as a representative republic, we elect individuals to provide for us as a nation and we must entrust those individuals with many things...National security being a very important example. And while I disagree with those who are anti-war, I believe that they have a right to protest, even though I am convinced those protests are helping our enemies. One must look into his or her own heart to determine whether their actions are detrimental to our war effort. Political correctness has made it too easy to allow protests to go unfettered, so the self-policing of protestors is the best hope we have.
And then there is Cindy. Today it was reported that she not only wants the US out of Iraq, she also wants Israel out of Palestine, although there really isn't a "Palestine." She won't pay any income taxes until George Bush (who "killed" her son) gives him back. And she also wants "these people" tried for war crimes, sent to jail, impeached, or any combination of the three. What does this have to do with grieving? How will this bring her son back? How does this honor his memory?
Cindy, whether willingly or not, is now just part of the anti-war establishment. You know, the far left. The extreme element that will always "blame America first". It is cliche, but true. This element of America feels that their cause is so noble and just, that they make a gigantic spectacle of their actions and [apparently] feel no regret about the potential negative impact that their actions may have, either to today's soldiers, or tomorrow's, or to any American in the future.
I do not feel we should "cut and run" as so many do at this time. Surrender does not seem to be a logical option to me. We can debate policy, we can question pre-war intelligence, we can accuse the President of lying, or we can unite, as a nation, and get the job done. Iraq or no Iraq, terrorism is a way of life. Getting US troops out of Iraq or the Israelis out of "Palestine" will not stop terrorism. Appeasement may appear to work for a time, but then another attack will be blamed on another president because it happened on "his watch." We need to abandon the rhetoric and decide, do we have the will to fight or not? If we say no today, will we have the strength to say yes when another attack on our soil takes place? Or will we just protest and hope that terrorist go away? Perhaps we can just surrender altogether.
To that, I say no, fight on.
Give war a chance.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Give War a Chance
There is talk pretty much anywhere and everywhere about the war in Iraq. There is a protest in Crawford, Texas by Cindy Sheehan who wants to speak with President Bush because she feels that he killed her son. There are many from all political walks of life who want to call Iraq a quagmire (to quote Teddy Kennedy) and much of the left and the media in this country would like it to be the next Vietnam.
As a nation, the United States is built on the tradition that everyone has freedom of speech. That freedom obviously leads to dissent which can (and is) broadcast far and wide in today's instant information age. There is debate about who really supports the troops and how best to support them. There is dissent about Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. You can find justification (or lack thereof) almost anywhere and be convincing in your argument, pro or con. But one thing that even stalwarts of support for the war seem to not have the stomach for is the fact that war, while a part of history, is bad. There have been many wars involving many people and for many reasons. Yet, today we feel that all wars should be quick and painless, but we really never seem to discuss whether they be complete.
I will start out by saying that I support the war in Iraq. I feel that regardless of how we got there, we should be willing to fight now that we are there. I even think we should fight on a bit larger scale. That decision is not mine to make, however, and I am fine with leaving that to the professionals. I am also fine with dissenters although I am very uncertain of many people's motives for their dissent. I think that a completely united front in this country would serve us well. Shortly after 9/11/01, President Bush addressed the nation and explained that the overall war on terror would be long. He said that sometimes we would see the results, instantly as we prefer. But, he also said that at times there may be nothing to report and results might seem slow in coming, if not absent altogether. That brings us to today.
There seems to be a fair amount of debate about how we only hear the bad things about Iraq. Death and destruction sell and mayhem will always trump footage of the day-to-day lives of any people who are going about their routine business. That is probably why the evening news always reports something bad about Iraq. And since Vietnam, the "glamour" of war is certainly absent in Americans' lives. Not to call war glamorous, but the unified patriotism is not what is was in say, WWII. But why? Was war not terrible then?
I have read that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden specifically feel that America is weak. He [allegedly] has made these comments based on years and years of our being weak in response to attacks on us. Going back to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, that case could definitely be made. Perhaps our devastating military supremacy is technologically overpowering, but perhaps our will to fight is every bit as underwhelming as the radical Islamists feel it is. And to go a step further, perhaps our ability to dissent is the very thing that those same radicals wish to capitalize on; to bring the political extremes in a free society to blows, so-to-speak, and to undermine our ability to fight by dividing and dissolving the support of the conflict we are engaged in. Like it or not, we are at war and the stakes are much, much too high to not take it seriously.
Politicians, demonstrators, and armchair quarterbacks all seem to want the quick victory that our military power can produce. But we want those things without collateral damage. We want them with no American casualties. We want them with a low price tag. Bombings in other countries serve to separate us from our allies and any nations brave enough to fight for freedom. The political forces against war rise up and demand that we "cut and run". Demonstrators in this country do the very same. Many of our elected officials clamor for an exit strategy and most of the media broadcasts these messages. We are being defeated before our very eyes, but no one seems to see that.
This war, the war on terror, is not like WWII. It is not against specific nations, yet the enemy is still after the same thing, world domination. The USA is one very large obstacle in the way. Whether you agree with Iraq or not, the "insurgency" seems to be backed (at least in part) by the very terrorists that we want to defeat. Still, we argue over the reasons for the war, why we are still there, what it has to do with 9/11, and whether America is safer now. You may have (and argue) your opinion on those issues all you want. As I said previously, I support the war in Iraq because I see it as a small part of the war on terror...a battle at the beginning of that war. I believe that this war will be a long and protracted conflict. Unfortunately, I think it could last beyond my lifetime. I even think that, if we are not careful and dedicated to winning, it could end up in the streets of America yet again and with more frequency. And while I will fully defend the right of anyone to offer a dissenting opinion, I think that we should clearly think about and understand what giving up on the war could mean and what the consequences of surrendering this fight could lead to in this country...perhaps not tomorrow, but far into the future. Had we given up in WWII, what would that future...today...have left for us?
Let us stay the course and fight for freedom on any battlefield necessary in order to preserve our way of life, including the option of dissent. Give war a chance.
As a nation, the United States is built on the tradition that everyone has freedom of speech. That freedom obviously leads to dissent which can (and is) broadcast far and wide in today's instant information age. There is debate about who really supports the troops and how best to support them. There is dissent about Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. You can find justification (or lack thereof) almost anywhere and be convincing in your argument, pro or con. But one thing that even stalwarts of support for the war seem to not have the stomach for is the fact that war, while a part of history, is bad. There have been many wars involving many people and for many reasons. Yet, today we feel that all wars should be quick and painless, but we really never seem to discuss whether they be complete.
I will start out by saying that I support the war in Iraq. I feel that regardless of how we got there, we should be willing to fight now that we are there. I even think we should fight on a bit larger scale. That decision is not mine to make, however, and I am fine with leaving that to the professionals. I am also fine with dissenters although I am very uncertain of many people's motives for their dissent. I think that a completely united front in this country would serve us well. Shortly after 9/11/01, President Bush addressed the nation and explained that the overall war on terror would be long. He said that sometimes we would see the results, instantly as we prefer. But, he also said that at times there may be nothing to report and results might seem slow in coming, if not absent altogether. That brings us to today.
There seems to be a fair amount of debate about how we only hear the bad things about Iraq. Death and destruction sell and mayhem will always trump footage of the day-to-day lives of any people who are going about their routine business. That is probably why the evening news always reports something bad about Iraq. And since Vietnam, the "glamour" of war is certainly absent in Americans' lives. Not to call war glamorous, but the unified patriotism is not what is was in say, WWII. But why? Was war not terrible then?
I have read that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden specifically feel that America is weak. He [allegedly] has made these comments based on years and years of our being weak in response to attacks on us. Going back to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, that case could definitely be made. Perhaps our devastating military supremacy is technologically overpowering, but perhaps our will to fight is every bit as underwhelming as the radical Islamists feel it is. And to go a step further, perhaps our ability to dissent is the very thing that those same radicals wish to capitalize on; to bring the political extremes in a free society to blows, so-to-speak, and to undermine our ability to fight by dividing and dissolving the support of the conflict we are engaged in. Like it or not, we are at war and the stakes are much, much too high to not take it seriously.
Politicians, demonstrators, and armchair quarterbacks all seem to want the quick victory that our military power can produce. But we want those things without collateral damage. We want them with no American casualties. We want them with a low price tag. Bombings in other countries serve to separate us from our allies and any nations brave enough to fight for freedom. The political forces against war rise up and demand that we "cut and run". Demonstrators in this country do the very same. Many of our elected officials clamor for an exit strategy and most of the media broadcasts these messages. We are being defeated before our very eyes, but no one seems to see that.
This war, the war on terror, is not like WWII. It is not against specific nations, yet the enemy is still after the same thing, world domination. The USA is one very large obstacle in the way. Whether you agree with Iraq or not, the "insurgency" seems to be backed (at least in part) by the very terrorists that we want to defeat. Still, we argue over the reasons for the war, why we are still there, what it has to do with 9/11, and whether America is safer now. You may have (and argue) your opinion on those issues all you want. As I said previously, I support the war in Iraq because I see it as a small part of the war on terror...a battle at the beginning of that war. I believe that this war will be a long and protracted conflict. Unfortunately, I think it could last beyond my lifetime. I even think that, if we are not careful and dedicated to winning, it could end up in the streets of America yet again and with more frequency. And while I will fully defend the right of anyone to offer a dissenting opinion, I think that we should clearly think about and understand what giving up on the war could mean and what the consequences of surrendering this fight could lead to in this country...perhaps not tomorrow, but far into the future. Had we given up in WWII, what would that future...today...have left for us?
Let us stay the course and fight for freedom on any battlefield necessary in order to preserve our way of life, including the option of dissent. Give war a chance.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Over There
I wish to opine about the FX original series Over There. I did not see the series premiere, so perhaps I shouldn't comment, but I will. Since it is a Steven Bochco production, I am guessing it is done quite well. However, I have just one question...why make a movie or TV series about a war that is still going on?
In today's age of instant communication, I am perplexed by the notion of wanting to do a fictional program about something that is going on as we speak. It might be better for all Americans to see the real story of real military personnel who have been (or are at present) involved in the war in Iraq or in any element of the war on terror (WWIV?). To portray the conflict in a fictional series seems a bit short-sighted to me, if not downright lazy. I am no TV executive, but I am a consumer of TV and I would be very receptive to a real life documentary that followed the lives of US military personnel who are involved in the war. It may even be a great way to collect charitable donations for them and their loved ones. I would think that it must be possible and I just wonder why no one would think to do it. Could it be so that the message comes out the way the producers want it to? I think that happens with much of the broadcast news today.
Again, I have not watched the show, and I doubt I will. I have an acquaintance who is really there right now. He drives a tank. I am sure that his real life stories are better than anything that I can see on TV.
Be safe Mike Hendricks.
In today's age of instant communication, I am perplexed by the notion of wanting to do a fictional program about something that is going on as we speak. It might be better for all Americans to see the real story of real military personnel who have been (or are at present) involved in the war in Iraq or in any element of the war on terror (WWIV?). To portray the conflict in a fictional series seems a bit short-sighted to me, if not downright lazy. I am no TV executive, but I am a consumer of TV and I would be very receptive to a real life documentary that followed the lives of US military personnel who are involved in the war. It may even be a great way to collect charitable donations for them and their loved ones. I would think that it must be possible and I just wonder why no one would think to do it. Could it be so that the message comes out the way the producers want it to? I think that happens with much of the broadcast news today.
Again, I have not watched the show, and I doubt I will. I have an acquaintance who is really there right now. He drives a tank. I am sure that his real life stories are better than anything that I can see on TV.
Be safe Mike Hendricks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
