I Feel Like Marvin The Martian ...
... as "I am angry," ((huff and puff)) "Very angry indeed."
The gentlemen over at The Mudville Gazette report on a situation that has developed involving a blogger. As they report, many MSM outlets are allowing soldiers to blog on their Internet sites; a sort of "johnny-on-the-spot" reporting that more people would appreciate. This is chalked up as a smart move on the part of the MSM. After all, our soldiers are the ones over there, and facing down the animals determined to defeat us.
On a day where the WaPo was smart, and allowed Wade Zirkle's op-ed to be printed (one in which he is refuting the antiwar detractors, and their arguments), they have allowed garbage to flood into their their Milblog, "Reporting for Duty" from people who show little, if any respect for the man who pens this column. The man's name is Bert Stover, a CWO2 in the Virginia National Guard. And he is, according to the bio on the site, "a 29-year-old, single male resident of the District of Columbia and the owner of a one bedroom condo. I work in the civilian sector as a computer programmer for Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (WPNI), the publisher of washingtonpost.com. In the military, I am a member of the Virginia Army National Guard performing the duties of a Black Hawk helicopter pilot. I have no professional writing experience." And he is cute, too. ;)
But what I am about to cut and paste here is the vitriol of people who have commented regarding his blog:
The United States lost one more airplane. Imagine the feelings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost family members as a result of the US takeover of their country.
Posted by: Uncle Sam April 12, 2006 01:51 PM
That airplane could have been useful to the Iraqi people, or in devastated New Orleans, or elsewhere. Unfortunately, it was being used for war and also unfortunately, the antiwar majority will be forced to pay for its replacement.
Posted by: Bring them home alive April 12, 2006 02:17 PM
I think you're a criminal. I know you didn't plan this invasion yourself, and that you are a small cog in a big machine. But the project of which you are apart is criminal.
You and your collegues went half way around the world to invade and occupy a country that posed you no threat. In doing so you broke the most important of international law (the UN charter) and set the example of 'might-is-right' for all the thugs of the world.
The Iraqis who oppose your presence are right to resist you. I would set IEDs for you if you invaded and occupied my country (Ireland) - and so would most people in most countries.
Many of us around the world had thought that the days of colonialism and imperialism were over. America has returned the world to this nightmare and people like yourself will kill and die until it returns to civility and the rule of law among nations. What a waste and what a crime.
Posted by: Anon April 12, 2006 02:31 PM
Allow me the pleasure of answering the Michael Moore wanna-be, please. To Anon: This war is indeed a criminal act. The relation to the law I speak of is a direct attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 but a radical group of Islamicists that dislike us. At first, this dislike was connected to our presence in Saudi Arabia, but ever since we left, there has been no end to the terrorists attacks that are being perpetrated and planned by our enemy.
The entry into Iraq was more than justified, just in Iraq's relationship to terrorist groups in the Middle East. If you did less reading of tin-foil hat, anti-Semitic websites perpetuating wacky conspiracy theories that only Ramsey Clark and Oliver Stone could appreciate, you would see that Saddam's ties to terrorists was a threat to the United States. Recently released documents show not only an al Qaeda presence within Iraq, and welcomed by some assets in the Hussein regime, but also an attempt or two by Iran to start diplomatic relations with Iraq. We were more than justified in moving in on Iraq, and removing Saddam Hussein.
But that is not all. The men at Mudville continue:
There can be no discussion of any human experiences outside of their historical context. The historical context of Bert Stover's experiences is the violent invasion of Iraq by the United States in violation of the foundational principle of international law as expressed at Geneva and Nuremberg: the prohibition against unprovoked aggressive war and the affirmation that illegal orders have no legal standing.
Posted by: Anon. April 12, 2006 05:57 PM
He just loves to taste the whip, does he not? International law, once flouted, can never be seriously revisited. If, in the realm of law, a UN mandate is not followed, should we resort to even harsher or sterner tones and admonitions rather than a consequence that means something? The politically-nuanced clicked their tongues when we decided to go to war to begin with, believing that we had not given diplomacy a chance. Those same people would like to see us go through twelve-plus years of simply warming the chair; that being dilly-dallying. When will the antiwar moonbats realize that at some point there must be a punishment for tossing the law aside? And I would like to know where Mr. Anon gets the "illegal orders" argument. What was illegal about what we did? The president proceeded forward only after he had the AUMF for Iraq from Congress. In the legal sense, and Constitutionally sound, that is a declaration of war.
Moreover those Nuremburg principles clearly state that uniformed soldiers should not be excused when they participate in illegal acts.
That's why we hanged hundreds of uniformed soldiers after WW2.
'War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." '
G.W. Bush, addressing Iraqi military, March 17 2003
Posted by: Not in my name April 12, 2006 06:18 PM
I would like to point out to "Not in my name" (likely the same person as Anon) that those soldiers involved in crimes committed in this war have been prosecuted. The dozen or so from the Abu Ghraib scandal are either serving sentences in Fort Leavenworth, or were dishonorably discharged from the service. They have reaped what they had sown, so to speak. In acting in a manner contrary to the UCMJ, and violating the rights of the detained. (That is not PC-speak for any of our regular readers. WE personally saw nothing violating the rights of any prisoner under the rules of war, the laws prohibiting torture, or their legal rights within the military justice system; in war, there are tribunals held for the captured. So the argument that no one has faced any sort of justice, or that justice will never be served, is pure balderdash. It has happened already, and is very likely to continue.
The problem with these people is precisely what is wrong with those on the Left that tear down the troops--their efforts and successes--and ignore all of it. To them, the troops can do no good, our military is there as an occupier, and we are ultimately the bad guys. This is hogwash. Even if one is to state that the Pentagon was a "military target," the World Trade Center was not. We are responding to an attack. It just so happens that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. Not many, but enough to be worrisome.
My brother does not fight for a dictator, or a war criminal. He fights because he has been ordered to do so by the President of the United States. He fights because, like me, he watched September 11th happen live on TV, and decided that he had a job to do. Uncle Sam was calling, and he knew the fight was going to be long and hard.
I do not berate him. I do not disrespect him. And that goes for every man and woman who puts on the uniform, and serves something bigger than themselves. We are all about ourselves nowadays, and those that are cannot believe these people whould do something like this. Had I been old enough in 2001, I might have joined him. (Not in his personal choice of fields; he is a Ranger, and women are not allowed in serving forward combat units. That is fine. I get it, and I support that move.) But I was not. I am pursuing my career, and as he told me last year, that is what he wants from me.
He told me that he would "take care of the bad guys. You need to concentrate on the future." I am. I am doing what I can for him. He wants the best for me, and I appreciate that. It does not stop my worrying at night, but that, too, is a part of war. If he is killed in action, then his life went for a noble cause; the same noble cause that Ward Zirkle spoke of this afternoon.
But unlike the commenters on "Reporting for Duty," I would be ready to pick up a rifle and stand post if Uncle Sam came calling for me.
The Bunny ;)
... as "I am angry," ((huff and puff)) "Very angry indeed."
The gentlemen over at The Mudville Gazette report on a situation that has developed involving a blogger. As they report, many MSM outlets are allowing soldiers to blog on their Internet sites; a sort of "johnny-on-the-spot" reporting that more people would appreciate. This is chalked up as a smart move on the part of the MSM. After all, our soldiers are the ones over there, and facing down the animals determined to defeat us.
On a day where the WaPo was smart, and allowed Wade Zirkle's op-ed to be printed (one in which he is refuting the antiwar detractors, and their arguments), they have allowed garbage to flood into their their Milblog, "Reporting for Duty" from people who show little, if any respect for the man who pens this column. The man's name is Bert Stover, a CWO2 in the Virginia National Guard. And he is, according to the bio on the site, "a 29-year-old, single male resident of the District of Columbia and the owner of a one bedroom condo. I work in the civilian sector as a computer programmer for Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (WPNI), the publisher of washingtonpost.com. In the military, I am a member of the Virginia Army National Guard performing the duties of a Black Hawk helicopter pilot. I have no professional writing experience." And he is cute, too. ;)
But what I am about to cut and paste here is the vitriol of people who have commented regarding his blog:
The United States lost one more airplane. Imagine the feelings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost family members as a result of the US takeover of their country.
Posted by: Uncle Sam April 12, 2006 01:51 PM
That airplane could have been useful to the Iraqi people, or in devastated New Orleans, or elsewhere. Unfortunately, it was being used for war and also unfortunately, the antiwar majority will be forced to pay for its replacement.
Posted by: Bring them home alive April 12, 2006 02:17 PM
I think you're a criminal. I know you didn't plan this invasion yourself, and that you are a small cog in a big machine. But the project of which you are apart is criminal.
You and your collegues went half way around the world to invade and occupy a country that posed you no threat. In doing so you broke the most important of international law (the UN charter) and set the example of 'might-is-right' for all the thugs of the world.
The Iraqis who oppose your presence are right to resist you. I would set IEDs for you if you invaded and occupied my country (Ireland) - and so would most people in most countries.
Many of us around the world had thought that the days of colonialism and imperialism were over. America has returned the world to this nightmare and people like yourself will kill and die until it returns to civility and the rule of law among nations. What a waste and what a crime.
Posted by: Anon April 12, 2006 02:31 PM
Allow me the pleasure of answering the Michael Moore wanna-be, please. To Anon: This war is indeed a criminal act. The relation to the law I speak of is a direct attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 but a radical group of Islamicists that dislike us. At first, this dislike was connected to our presence in Saudi Arabia, but ever since we left, there has been no end to the terrorists attacks that are being perpetrated and planned by our enemy.
The entry into Iraq was more than justified, just in Iraq's relationship to terrorist groups in the Middle East. If you did less reading of tin-foil hat, anti-Semitic websites perpetuating wacky conspiracy theories that only Ramsey Clark and Oliver Stone could appreciate, you would see that Saddam's ties to terrorists was a threat to the United States. Recently released documents show not only an al Qaeda presence within Iraq, and welcomed by some assets in the Hussein regime, but also an attempt or two by Iran to start diplomatic relations with Iraq. We were more than justified in moving in on Iraq, and removing Saddam Hussein.
But that is not all. The men at Mudville continue:
There can be no discussion of any human experiences outside of their historical context. The historical context of Bert Stover's experiences is the violent invasion of Iraq by the United States in violation of the foundational principle of international law as expressed at Geneva and Nuremberg: the prohibition against unprovoked aggressive war and the affirmation that illegal orders have no legal standing.
Posted by: Anon. April 12, 2006 05:57 PM
He just loves to taste the whip, does he not? International law, once flouted, can never be seriously revisited. If, in the realm of law, a UN mandate is not followed, should we resort to even harsher or sterner tones and admonitions rather than a consequence that means something? The politically-nuanced clicked their tongues when we decided to go to war to begin with, believing that we had not given diplomacy a chance. Those same people would like to see us go through twelve-plus years of simply warming the chair; that being dilly-dallying. When will the antiwar moonbats realize that at some point there must be a punishment for tossing the law aside? And I would like to know where Mr. Anon gets the "illegal orders" argument. What was illegal about what we did? The president proceeded forward only after he had the AUMF for Iraq from Congress. In the legal sense, and Constitutionally sound, that is a declaration of war.
Moreover those Nuremburg principles clearly state that uniformed soldiers should not be excused when they participate in illegal acts.
That's why we hanged hundreds of uniformed soldiers after WW2.
'War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." '
G.W. Bush, addressing Iraqi military, March 17 2003
Posted by: Not in my name April 12, 2006 06:18 PM
I would like to point out to "Not in my name" (likely the same person as Anon) that those soldiers involved in crimes committed in this war have been prosecuted. The dozen or so from the Abu Ghraib scandal are either serving sentences in Fort Leavenworth, or were dishonorably discharged from the service. They have reaped what they had sown, so to speak. In acting in a manner contrary to the UCMJ, and violating the rights of the detained. (That is not PC-speak for any of our regular readers. WE personally saw nothing violating the rights of any prisoner under the rules of war, the laws prohibiting torture, or their legal rights within the military justice system; in war, there are tribunals held for the captured. So the argument that no one has faced any sort of justice, or that justice will never be served, is pure balderdash. It has happened already, and is very likely to continue.
The problem with these people is precisely what is wrong with those on the Left that tear down the troops--their efforts and successes--and ignore all of it. To them, the troops can do no good, our military is there as an occupier, and we are ultimately the bad guys. This is hogwash. Even if one is to state that the Pentagon was a "military target," the World Trade Center was not. We are responding to an attack. It just so happens that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. Not many, but enough to be worrisome.
My brother does not fight for a dictator, or a war criminal. He fights because he has been ordered to do so by the President of the United States. He fights because, like me, he watched September 11th happen live on TV, and decided that he had a job to do. Uncle Sam was calling, and he knew the fight was going to be long and hard.
I do not berate him. I do not disrespect him. And that goes for every man and woman who puts on the uniform, and serves something bigger than themselves. We are all about ourselves nowadays, and those that are cannot believe these people whould do something like this. Had I been old enough in 2001, I might have joined him. (Not in his personal choice of fields; he is a Ranger, and women are not allowed in serving forward combat units. That is fine. I get it, and I support that move.) But I was not. I am pursuing my career, and as he told me last year, that is what he wants from me.
He told me that he would "take care of the bad guys. You need to concentrate on the future." I am. I am doing what I can for him. He wants the best for me, and I appreciate that. It does not stop my worrying at night, but that, too, is a part of war. If he is killed in action, then his life went for a noble cause; the same noble cause that Ward Zirkle spoke of this afternoon.
But unlike the commenters on "Reporting for Duty," I would be ready to pick up a rifle and stand post if Uncle Sam came calling for me.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:02 PM
1 Comments:
Your posts are intelligent and not without feeling. As I read the post addressed to "Reporting For Duty" I had this nagging feeling that someone used that with a sloppy salute, Oh, yes, I remember, John Kerry. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home