Jan 01 2007
My Nominee for the NWBloggers person(s) of the year.
I thought this would be hard. I was wrong. I just read a headline on the Seattle Times’ Website that mentioned that the 3,000th military death had been reached in Iraq. It’s a shame that our media has to make a big deal over these “round” numbers as if they’re significant. Every military death is significant.
The media has used these “milestone” deaths to try to dampen our support for the mission of our troops. It’s been quite an effective tactic, with the constant drumbeat eroding support for the war. Even so, this war has had a surprisingly small number of troop deaths compared to other wars. That can, in large part, be attributed to the success of our troops in dealing with the enemy.
My nominee(s) for the NWBlogger person(s) of the year are the brave men and women of the U.S. Military that have sacrificed their lives to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. These soldiers truly deserve to be honored by us all. They gave all that they had so that others could know freedom. They made the ultimate sacrifice to end tyranny and promote democracy in Iraq.
There is no greater sacrifice a man can make than to give his life for others. I honor their sacrifice and pray that we finish the job. To abandon the effort after their sacrifice would be a slap in their faces.
Cross posted at Perri Nelson’s Website.
9 Responses to “My Nominee for the NWBloggers person(s) of the year.”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’m sorry Perri, but at the risk of offending you - that’s sick. They have been "sacrificed" for nothing. All that has been achieved is revenge, chaos, the debilitation of our army, and the looting of our treasury, to the tune of half a trillion dollars. Stay there ’till your hell freezes over, and there still will be no Democracy, because enough Iraqis are averse to the proposal to ruin it.
Get them out now - at least as far a Kuwait, and force the regional players, most especially the Saudis, to police their own…
Perri - I am pleasantly not surprised that the American soldier is part of this effort. Thanks.
Playin’ Possum - get stuffed and read some Milblogs first.
Perri, I have to agree that this is a good pick.
Maybe we can use Lt Bryan Suits from KVI as our poster child.
Karl, I think Lt. Suits would be a great poster child. I'm sorry you don't agree with my pick Possum. That's an interesting perspective on events you have. I'll give you that. As for whether there'll be democracy I seem to recall a lot of purple fingers waving in the air and some rather proud and jubulant faces. I seem to recall hearing about massive voter turnout in Iraq that would put the United States voter turnouts to shame. I seem to recall this happening more than once. I'm not certain that "enough Iraqis are averse to the proposal" as you say. It seems to me that a lot of the so-called insurgency in Iraq consists of foreign imports. A few thousand terrorists hanging around Bagdad and the suburbs may be causing problems, but they're massively outnumbered by the rest of the Iraqi people. As for your suggestion that the "regional players", "especially the Saudis" police their own, you seem to think that the Middle East is one big Arabic nation. That's not the case. Iraq is a sovereign nation. What happens there isn't for the Saudis to determine, or any of the other "regional players". We're there because we must be. We're there to prop up and defend a fledgling democracy in Iraq after we deposed a power-mad murdurous dictator. We'll be there as long as we're needed, and only until the Iraqi government is able to stand on its own. A couple of years ago, President Bush did say when we'd leave, but people keep forgetting. He said we'd leave if and when the duly elected Iraqi government asked us to. That hasn't happened yet. Our soldiers went into Iraq with open eyes. They want to be there. The Iraqis still want them there. Maybe not forever, nobody wants that, but certainly until the job is done.
No way Perri. That’s just a lot of the same hype we’ve been hearing all along. I’ve been following both sides of this and watching the body count. It just doesn’t add up your way.
Blue fingers… I thought the turnout was impressive, until I heard the other side. I ran into several accounts that insist the turnout was juiced and that indeed the whole idea of a Shiite majority is invented too. The other side insists 1) The ballot was rigged by the Shiites, especially by the Mahdi army, Al Sadr, and his Iranian butt-buddies who were caught more than once bringing fake ballots in from Iran… Funny how nobody - our army included - followed that one up… In any event, this much is certain: A lot of Sunni did boycott the election - and more than we think if the census is incorrect - and the Shiites, including the women, were ORDERED by their Imams to vote. Now of course they are back to screwing the women - women’s rights are worse off now than under Saddam.
A Nation… A Nation invented in Europe, a Nation with less history than we have, a Nation that has never known a peaceful year - that isn’t a Nation. The Brits bought cooperation in WWI and then screwed the Arabs that helped them; they got a revolt in 1920 for their troubles. After they put that one down, their puppet Faisal I, got 96% of the votes in an election… Sound familiar? His grandson, Faisal II, who was just a kid was "in charge" under a Brit regent and an elected premier when WWII broke out but the Premier was overthrown by a pro-kraut Arab which forced the Brits to take over again to place their puppet back in charge… Anyway, the Brits were forced to leave a force there until just after WWII and just after they left Iraq and Jordan went after Israel…The place fell apart thereafter, with a couple more boycotted, botched elections. Faisal II "ruled" until the late ’50’s when he died in a coup… He was overthrown by the Baathists in ‘63. Meanwhile, Saddam moved up through the party ranks and killed his way into power in ‘79 killing off the Baathist opposition…
Meanwhile, the Kurds were in a state of open revolt most of the time from WWII until Saddam - a Baathist Colonel at the time if memory serves - slaughtered them in ‘75… Slaughtered with help from the Shah, while Jerry Ford’s boy, Don Rumsfeld - remember don-boy? - was sucking up to the government in Baghdad…
Some Nation…
A few thousand terrorists Perri, that is just a damn lie invented by our government. Think critically about it. If it were just a few foreigners, we’d have had their ass long ago. It’s tens of thousands if not millions of Sunnis who are fighting the genocide we are, or have been until recently, turning a blind eye to. A resistance needs people behind them - places to hide, people to feed them, etc. Think about it…
And those Sunni have far more in common historically and culturally with the Saudis who helped their parents and grandparents more than once over the course of the last century…
We’re there because we must? We’re there because we want to re-establish the oil deals that kept westerners interested from 1918 to 1990 and we want to make sure whoever "wins" won’t go back to paying suicide bombers and otherwise harassing the Israelis. "They" want us there? The various "theys" want us to help - or at least not hinder - their agendas of destruction. All we’re doing is allowing the factions to shoot it out - this nonsense of a "troop surge" is designed to stop that, but it’s futile… They live there; we’re camping out… They will outlast us, as they did the Brits.
And we’re backing the wrong horse, just as we did in ‘Nam. The Shiite Arabs will make common cause with their Persian brethren before they make common cause with the Sunni Arabs, take that to the bank. And the Shiites are the ones that really want the Israeli’s ass…
One good thing may come out of this, but only if Iraq is dismembered: There will be a Kurdistan. it’s the one part of this mess that’s working, because they are the one group of civilized people involved. The rest are just what Nasser called them long ago: Tribes with flags.
Oh well… We’ll see. So far, though, I have to insist the war has gone down just as I expected right from the get-go. Can you claim that?
The Shrub can’t - not without lying, that is… But lying doesn’t seem to be a problem for our Liar-in-Chief…
And SVC… What good are the Mil blogs when the mil establishment is censoring them?
I stand by my nomination.I’m not going to wear a tin-foil hat to argue against it.The accusations of lying thown against president Bush don’t stand up to the light of day. The things that he’s been saying were said by the left for years while Clinton was in office.http://basilsblog.net/2006/11/04/did-liberals-lie-about-weapons-of-mass-destruction/In any case, the sniping about whether we should be there or not isn’t the point. The point is that our military is giving its all, not just for us, but for others. They truly deserve to be honored.
There is very limited censorship of Milblogs - mainly troop movements. Try reading http://boredsoldier.blogspot.com for starters, then Blackfive.
The military of today is an all volunteer force that stands up to any challange presented.
It is not a matter of the validity of individual conflicts, that is a matter for the statesmen to decide.
regardless the matter in Iraq was given congressional aproval, and all the back outs now are irrelevent.
The average military guy follows orders and goes where he was sent.
That is why their dedication marks them worthy of note.