You know, there are a lot of people crying “for the children” these days. I just read a post somewhere about how the US embargo of Cuba hurts the children.
Well, Americans have always done everything they could to help children. Just like 1Sgt Hook.
Help if you can. Hell, who can’t? I don’t have any handy, but I think I’ll visit the shoe store this weekend.
Operation Shoe Fly
B Co, 214th Aviation Regiment
Bagram, Afghanistan
APO AE 09354-9998
What is it like to live in the US or UK compared to life in Saudi Arabia?
We don’t have religious police, for one thing.
Bogey appears to be a quiet, cerebral liberal, not quite the ranting leftists we see and hear. He is calm and reasoned in his arguments. Then he goes and writes something like this:
I’m still hooked on the idea of doing this all on the down-low. Train the right people the right way, get inside, kill all the right bastards ? just enough of them to give ordinary people the opportunity to rise up and take their countries back from religious extremists who won’t accept a changing, evolving, interdependent world. I’ve seen plenty of posts out in the blogosphere wondering, “Why aren’t the Iraqi people rising up? Why aren’t they rooting out and killing the bastards who are trying to sabotage their great shot at a free, prosperous future?” Well, I’m starting to think it’s just because we’re there.
I wish we could do just such a thing. Unfortunately, those very people you’ve trained end up being the next Saddam.
He is spot-on about the Iraqi people needing to step up. Some have, especially in Najaf. But the society has to mature. This is a culture which has operated under threat for two generations, and longer. They do not yet know whom they can trust with their lives. Neighbors have always turned in neighbors, or turned a blind eye to avoid being caught up in something bad. It will take some time to repair the psychological damage.
Flash from MSNBC today–the G8 protestors in Savanna are perturbed at the high police presence. “They don’t want to hear what we have to say!”
Neither do I. You haven’t had anything original to say in twenty years. You’re just mad because the police are keeping you from expressing your disapproval of policy by detroying everything in sight.
What images does that name conjure in your mind? What was the basis of his Presidency? Can you remember anything about it?
Most people could probably recall the 444 day incarceration of some 50 Americans held captive by Iranian “students”. But what else do you remember of his single term as President of the United States?
I voted for Carter in 1976. I viewed him as a man of principle and intelligence. After all, he had graduated from the Naval Academy and was selected for nuclear submarine duty–one of the best of the best. In spite of the positive things Nixon had accomplished, I thought it was time to have his appointed successor, Gerald Ford, go home. We needed an outsider in Washington.
Carter came in with Human Rights as his mission. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm was matched by his naivet?. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to prop up a Communist government, Jimmy responded by preventing our Olympic athletes from competing in Moscow. I guess that showed those Commies! He gave the Panama Canal Zone to Panama, which upset many folks. What I remember most about it, though, was Mondale’s visit. We flew him around and he remarked, “You mean we’re giving all this to the Panamanians?” I wanted to ask if he had even bothered to read the treaty. When Carter visited, soldiers were required to attend his speeches because all the civilians refused.
Carter was equally adept at domestic policy. Tip O’Neill did as he liked in Congress, and pretty much let Jimmy know who was really in charge.
We then got Ronald Reagan. He was old, simple, and a former actor. But he had to be better than Carter. He was. A lot better.
Reagan was direct. When he spoke of human rights, he backed it with action. The Iran-Contra Scandal was all about human rights. Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president, decided what he really wanted was what Castro had in Cuba. The Contras were, well, contrary. Our Democrats in Congress liked Ortega (still do) and Reagan flanked them and provided arms to the Contras, who eventually restored democracy to Nicaragua.
Reagan confronted the Soviets, and people howled and protested as we put Pershing missiles in Europe. The Soviets collapsed. Human rights were restored in Eastern Europe.
Certain Democrats are now concerned Reagan’s death boosts Bush. There is some debate from both sides on the validity of that opinion. I think it might if people make the correct link.
Carter viewed human rights as a legal issue. Working within other nations’ legal systems would bring humanity to everyone in the world. Reagan saw it as a good vs. evil proposition. Evil must be confronted and destroyed for people to enjoy those rights inherent to all humanity.
Bill Clinton viewed terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Working with other nations’ legal systems would eventually bring terrorists to justice. Bush sees it as a good vs. evil proposition. Evil must be confronted and destroyed for people to enjoy those rights inherent to all humanity.
What concerns the left more than anything is that Americans might make this link. Not only would it destroy Kerry’s chances in November, it would land Bill Clinton’s legacy in the same dumpster as Jimmy Carter’s. I think the latter is a foregone conclusion. It remains for us to see what happens with the former.
*******UPDATE***********
I thought about this post as I drove home today. I’ve heard and read about some of the absolutely hateful things people have said about Reagan. I cannot believe any sane person would talk like that about someone who just died. I think little of Jimmy Carter. I believe he was probably the worst President of the 20th century. But he wasn’t mean-spirited. He was sincere in his beliefs. I doubt there would be more than a few on the very fringe who would say such things about him.
Clinton is always the one the left points to as an example of a President who has been treated unfairly. You are welcome to believe that, but his treatment pales in comparison to that endured by Bush, and now Reagan. And I would condemn anyone who derided him in this way on his death. Again, from the right there would be mostly silence.
Not so from the left. But it has more to do with Bush and this election than it does with Reagan. And it is because the two share common traits. Both were/are humble in their office. Carter was, too. But his humilty came across as a lack of confidence, similarly for Bush 41. Clinton had no humility. Nor did Nixon. Or Johnson.
We’ve come a long way from the time of Harry Truman, a Democrat who shared many of the same traits as both Bush and Reagan: respect for the office, a strong vision for the future through solving the problems of today, and a government that followed the Constitution.
Give ’em hell, Harry! And Ronnie, and George. Give ’em hell!
Applause can indicate many things. In some places, it simply says you don’t care to die today. Some Iraqis understand this all too well. Saddam, after all, modeled his reign on that of Stalin.
One last thing to say: we, in Iraq, have learnt the lesson and we?re not going to praise and clap to anyone and no one can force us to do so no matter what his place is. The road to dictatorships starts with clapping.
Tim Blair has something on the topic of media bias, and how impressions are formed.
Several days ago I was speaking with a young man who represents one of our vendors. He talked about the military quite a bit, and I got the impression he was interested in becoming a military pilot. So I asked him about that.
“No, but I have a friend who’s now in Iraq.” The impression this man had was that things were not going well. His friend told him Iraqis didn’t like Americans, and he had someone spit on him.
I said, “I got spit on wearing my uniform in this country.” He didn’t know how to respond except with an incredulous, “Really?”
How little some people know about anti-war protestors past and present.
Powered by WordPress