I got this in my e-mail the other day, and I've decided that I am certainly going to do it. It may just be a fruitless gesture, but you never know, some great movements and ideas have grown from tiny seeds. How about joining me?

RED FRIDAYS ----- Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing
Red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be
called the "silent majority". We are no longer silent, and are voicing our
love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not
organized, boisterous or over-bearing. We get no media coverage on TV, to
reflect our message or our opinions.

Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to
recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops. Our idea
of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect
starts this Friday -and continues each and every Friday until the troops all
come home, sending a deafening message that.. Every red-blooded American
who supports our men and women afar will wear something red

By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every
Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers.
If every one of us who loves this country will share this with
acquaintances, co-workers, f riends, and family. It will not be long before
the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once "silent"
majority is on their side more than ever, certainly more than the media lets
on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make
things better for you?" is...We need your support and your prayers. Let's
get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example; and wear some
thing red every Friday.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

I was going through my daily read routine when I found this over at Gut Rumbles:

The hubster and eldest spawn are off camping this weekend with some friends of ours. Guys weekend out...they do this often, however...this one is really special to them all. Why? Because, Mikey, errr....Michael...hell no...he's Mikey, is in town on leave. Mikey's 19 years old, a helluva Marine and headed to Iraq in the next 2 weeks. He's ready to go, he's willing to fight, however, he's nervous. Who wouldn't be? Iraq and Effingham County aren't really similar at all! Anyway, I would really, really, from the bottom of my heart appreciate you sending any sort of message (not an f-ed up you're dying for nothing one, nice ones) to give to him before he leaves. He's a great kid, and I really appreciate him and those like him who are willing to protect our ass. No matter how you feel about the war, how many 19 year olds that you know would head over there? If you pray, tell him, if you feel thankful, tell him, if you wish him Godspeed - tell him. If you have military advice or are a veteran, depart some of that wisdom. Please send it to me at: writing4areason@aol.com and I will be sure to print it out and give it to him. Sometimes ya just gotta let someone know you appreciate them having your back!! Semper Fi!! (and if you want to send this on...please do...the more the merrier!!) If you don't want to leave your full name or whatever....leave your blog addy, or whatever...please let me know where you are from....so he can see it ain't just us Jawja crackers wishing him well!!

This young man deserves all the support we can muster for him; please take a moment out of your busy life and let him know that his service IS appreciated.

Thank you for following in a great tradition of Service, Mikey! You do your parents and your neighbors proud.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

Dax Montana has a post up belieing the curent Mooonbat meme that our "Armed Services are a broken, dispirited force". All I can say is JUST DAMN!

I think you're wrong Dax; you'd of made a HELL of a soldier. I envy you in the pride you felt that your establishment meant so much to one NCO that he requested it as the backdrop of his reenlistment, that speaks volumes as to your own charactor.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 05:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

I have the distinct feeling that soon we will be engaged in a military action in Iran. With the repeated public statements of the elected President of that benighted country, calling for the eradication of Israel, or at the least, the relocation of Israel to Europe, and their throwing out the UN atomic watchdogs in their continued quest to enriching uranium, I don't see that diplomacy really has much of a chance to work, and we simply CAN'T allow a nuclear Iran to become a reality.

I can hear one of the first questions from my liberal readers: "what gives us the right to determine whether or not Iran goes nuclear?"

To which I can only respond that being the biggest dog in the pack gives us the right, no, the RESPONSIBLITY to prevent that occurance. We are the only ones that CAN.

We owe it to our citizens, unless you think we have to wait until one of our cities goes up in a mushroom cloud before we can respond? And make no mistake, a nuclear Iran WILL result in that happening, sooner or later.

We had the chance to prevent North Korea from being a nuclear power, and we chose to go the endless diplomatic route until it was a fait accompli, much to our disadvantage today. We cannot afford to make that same mistake again.
As crazy as the Dictator of NoKo is; next to the leadership of Iran, he's a model of mental stability, and at least in NoKo, we have the Chinese exercising some control over the situation. In Iran, there is nothing but the dreams of a religeous zealot anxious to bring on an Apocalypse that he believes will bring on the New Caliphate.

It will not be an easy fight; it will be bloody and long, but it is a fight that will have to fought.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 03:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

I've written before about how our LSM has really seemed to be an arm of propaganda for the enemy in Iraq. They are quick to show body bags of our troops, and bemoan civilian causelties...but when was the last time you've heard of anything that shows the true heroism our guys display?

Bob Lonsberryhas written a great summery of just one such HERO, and it's been put on the WWW by Mary Jones on it's own page.

Put it in your favorites, and whenever you get depressed by the seemingly endless reporting of "quagmire" and "failure", go bact to it and know that that is not the real story.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Sir George once again demonstrates how BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) can turn otherwise at least semi-competant academics into blithering idiots.

As Sir George pointed out, for the projections of cost to be accurate, we would have to spend approximately $2 BILLION a year per (current number) wounded veteran for the next 35 years. I know that health care is expensive, (boy, don't I know it after undergoing a sextuple bypass!) but I would think that a $2 million per vet per year figure would be an unreasonably high estimate, much less a $2 billion figure.

They also cite a "slowing of the US economy" WHAT slowing? Last month all the leading economic indicators showed a rise in all areas...

They say that "the rise in oil prices is directly attributal to the war"....Sir George points out that the difference in production in Iraq was only 180,000 barrels lower than this same time last year; which on the world market isn't even a drop in the bucket. Of course, these are economists, so they don't have to provide evidence of their contentions, all the rest of us should just assume that it's gospel truth, working arcane manipulations of numbers that turn out results of past figures into something 71 times greater.

They furthur show that they don't have any conception of what they are talking about when they accuse the US of using depleted uranium bombs in Iraq...seems that they know of a sooper sekrit ordnance™ that the soldiers that use it don't. There is NO SUCH THING as a "depleted uranium bomb".

Furthur, the effects that they ascribe to DU have been shown not to exist in study after study. But, as in the case of all those afflicted with BDS, facts have little to do with their rhetoric. It takes roughly 3 tons of DU per acre to raise the normal background radiation on a given area by .002%. it would take roughly 150,000 rounds of DU PER acre to reach that level...even a raging moonbat should see the absurdity of the possibility of that.

In fact, DU is THREE times less radioactive in the U-235 ( the dangerous fraction) than occurs in NATURAL Uranium that is present in most soils. DU is used in place of lead as shielding in some Hospital x-ray facilities because it's density per ounce allows for thinner shields and it's ability to STOP radiation from passing through it. See large numbers of techs coming down with radiation poisoning?

It's used in the armor plating of some tanks and the ballast weights in some fighter aircraft...see thousands of soldiers and pilots coming down with radiation poisoning? Hundreds? ONE?

Radioactivity is the Boogyman of the uninformed...tell someone that something is "radioactive" and they flee the spot shrieking in terror. It's taylor made for the hysterical meme crowd, since so few people are really informed about it.

Yes the Iraq war IS a costly endeavor, ALL war is costly; both in terms of lives and treasure, but the cost in not seeing it through to the end would be much higher, and asertions such as those made by the authors of the article only serves to muddy the water to the greater detriment of us all.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:34 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 3 kb.

Rep. Murtha has used his status as a Viet Nam war hero to lend weight to his accusations of President Bush as, among other things, condicting an "illegal war". Rep. Murtha has two purple hearts for wounds sustained in combat, leading one to believe that he does have "gravitas" as the LSM would call it.

But DOES he really deserve that gravitas? Marc Morano and Randy Hall seem to think they have found evidence that Murtha is more like another Democratic "war hero", and doesn't deserve the medals that he received.

Mr. Murtha, unlike the other poseur, DID volunteer for service in Viet Nam, and he deserves recognition for that, but if it can be proven that he doesn't deserve the extra recognition for service that those medals represent, he shows that he too, was thinking of a future political career when he gamed the system to get them...but at least he didn't use them to avoid furthur military service.

Are the charges legitimate? I can't say, there isn't enough information as yet to be certain, but one thing that does lend credence to the charges is Mr. Murtha's refusal to release his military records that could answer the question one way or another to both sides satisfaction. What do you have to hide Mr. Murtha?

Release your records and prove the other side wrong, and you increase your standing as a critic of the war.

I do respect Mr. Murtha's service, but his current statments belie everything that that service stood for, and the fact he won't settle this question as easily as he could only further lessens the respect for that service that he should be accrued. Prior service only extends so far, present actions can eiter enhance that respect, or destroy it. For myself, I don't care whether the charges are true or not; Mr. Murtha's statements destroyed any respect that I felt due him.
He has let partisian politics taint what was a good record.

"Once a Marine;ALWAYS a Marine" is the Corps' (unofficial) proud credo, but I think they would like to make an exception in Rep. Murtha's case.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 09:51 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Lifted from GuK:

Close your eyes and make this image: It's blazing summer heat in Ar Ramadi, and the Marines have just finished an important anti-insurgent operation. A CNN reporter is "embedded", and has been covering the action, and his cameraman has just gotten a video of a Marine sniper making a kill with his M-24 sniper rifle.

The CNN reporter waits until the Marine and his spotter have stood down, and he goes up to the sniper and sticks the microphone in the sniper's grimy face. "What do you feel when you kill an enemy freedom fighter like that?" the reporter asks the Marine.

The Marine squints some dust from his eyes, looks the reporter up and down, and says, "Recoil, sir."

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin isolated the video of Rep. Murtha getting his clock cleaned by one of those "demoralized" soldiers he keeps harping about.

The look on Murthas face says it all.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Odysseus has his own perspective on the "Year in Review" that's really worth the read. I especially liked his handling of Cindy Sheehans antics.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's another side of operations in Iraq. That of the Sniper. Sgt. J Gilliland is fast becoming a legend in the sniper community. He has between 55 and 65 confirmed kills, but he recently polished his reputation with a one shot kill from a range of 4,100 Feet...about 900 feet longer than the "maximum" range of his sighting equipment.

click to enlarge

WW1 had Sgt York, WW2: Audie Murphy, Viet Nam:Carlos Hathcock.

Now Iraq has Sgt Gilliland. One man with a rifle, and the skill to use it effectively, CAN make a difference.
Operational security (and I'm SURE personal preference) aside, we need to know about heroes like Sg. Gilliland. The MSM talks "quagmire" and without anything other than causelty statistics and insurgent Islamofacist attacks being reported, it's hard to keep the morale here at home up. It's an unfortunate fact of life that we need our heroes. I'm sure that Sgt. Gililand considers himself anything BUT a hero...probably more along the lines of a hired gun, in the service of his country, yes; but nothing more than a hired killer. But he IS a hero in that his particular skill saves far more lives than he takes.

I hope he takes comfort in that fact in the years to come when the inevitable pangs of conscience crop up. The snipers job is a particularly callous one. You can respect the enemy, but you can't give him the chance to "fight fair"; you hunt him, find him, and kill him as expeditiously as possible. No romance, no honor, just murder; but murder in the cause of a higher calling, saving lives.
Lives of your fellow servicemen and civilians.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 03:46 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

This is the longest post I've ever put up. Get a cup of your favorite beverage, relax, and I hope you enjoy.

One of my best Blogging compatriots, RightWingRocker, has a friend identified as "ArmyBryan" who just returned from the MidEast Sandbox Tour™, otherwise known as the Iraqi war. RWR asked AB if he could interview him as a post for his blog, and AB graciously acceded to the request. This Left RWR in a bit of a quandry; WHAT to ask?

Well, he came across a mock debate contrived by Michael Smerconish, a Philadelphia talk radio host; asking several prominent people to comment on fourteen of his personal opinions regarding Iraq. Mr. Smerconish simply played each of their recorded answers one right after the other in a debate form. The questions are succinct, and cut right to the heart of the basic disagreements in the body politic, so he decided to use them as the basis of his interview.

Go here for ArmyBryans's responses.

I thought it might be good to get a greater sample to add to the debate, so
I asked two men that I greatly admire and respect to do the same. They are both midlevel officers that recently served in Iraq. They seldom agree on matters of politics, so I thought it might be interesting to compare what they had to say. Then I decided, why limit it to two? I decided to have the two "active" duty soldiers in this first installment; two "seasoned" veterans (Ret) in the second; and two civilians chipping in on the third. that way we would have 6 sets of opinions, coming from different political perspectives and different levels of personal involvement.

First up is StreetGang 6. He's a bit more to the left than I am, certainly, but I've always found him to be capable of debating in a well reasoned manner, so why I may not always agree with him, I have to respect his arguments.

ON WITH THE SHOW:

Do you agree or disagree; are you willing to admit or deny these statements?

1. 9/11 was the work of radical Islam.

Without a doubt! We've seen what a 15th century mind-set armed with 21st century technology can now do. On a personal note, I find the canard making the rounds in the umma that the Isrealis were responsible for the attacks and that the Jews that worked in the WTC were warned not to go to work that day viscerally and personally offensive. I say this as I lost a friend of over 10 years in the South Tower, and she was a Jew. A LOT of families I know sat shiva that week....

2. Post-9/11 there was a consensus in the country to be forward-leaning, meaning to be pre-emptive if necessary to protect against further attack.

Yep. If anyone disagrees, a quick archive search of pretty much every op-ed page in the nation, including most unlikeliest of all publications the Village Voice, will quickly tell you otherwise. At the time, I had queasy feeling that our quest for pay-back would take us down a rabbit hole. Unfortunately, I'm seeing some of my worst fears being realized.

3. Iraq played no role in the events of September 11.

Agreed. This was largely the work of a band of islamo-fascist fanatics that had little affiliation with any nation-state. What little affliation it did have was more with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whom ironically we now claim as "allies" in the GWOT.

4. Iraq was nevertheless perceived by American and foreign military and intelligence operations to pose a threat, based principally upon the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.

Agreed. EVERY credible intel service in the world had made that estimate. However, even then, there was considerable dispute within the intel communities to the full extent and nature of the threat posed by Sadadm Hussein's Iraq.

5. Saddam Hussein\'s perceived possession of WMDs was the primary reason advanced by the Bush administration in support of the invasion of Iraq.

Yes. And at the time I thought GWB was making the wrong argument. The correct argument for taking out Hussein was the same one that was, corectly, made against Serbia's Milosevic, i.e., he's a genocidial, meglomaniacal sociopath that the civilized world should eliminate. America has a noble history of going to war on behalf of freedom and individual dignity. Americans respond to those reasons best.

6. It is now apparent that Saddam had no WMDs, meaning the Administration\'s predicate for going to war was faulty.

Yes. Which is precisely why I wished GEB didn't use that as the reason for going to war. I've heard the counter-argument that he shipped his WMD's to Syria, as indicated by the huge amount of trucks moving overland to Syria before the war. From what Although that possibility cannot be 100% dismissed, the more likely explanation is that this traffic was the result of Iraqi citizens (largely Sunnis and Baathist) getting themselves and their stuff out before the hammer fell.

7. There can\'t be any disagreement about this. With or without WMDs, Saddam Hussein is nevertheless an SOB.

Absolutely. Good riddance!

8. The fact that the Administration was wrong about WMDs does not mean that the President lied on that subject.

No, he was merely "wrong." But still accountable. We've now had 3 intel failures (this, 9/11, and our post invasion Iraqi forecast) at the national decision making level in as many years. We need to know why and people need to be held accountable.

9. I know we\'ve got controversy on this one, the war in Iraq is going poorly.

Not poor, just tougher than it needed to be. It could have gone a lot better if SecDef had actually listened to his green suiters about stability and reconstruction ops. It would have gone a lot easier if the State Dept wasn't frozen out by the Pentagon immediately after the fall of Hussein. And it would have had a lot more "legitimacy," if the arrogance of the adminstration hadn't alienated our natural allies. I mean we even had the FRENCH on-board in late 2001 for pete's sake.

10. It\'s entirely possible that when all is said and done, we will have facilitated the replacement of Saddam Hussein with a leadership regime in Iraq that is beholden to Iran and unfriendly to the U.S., albeit one that does not equal the evil of Saddam nor the type of threat he could have become.

Possible, but not probable. Worse case, Iraq breaks down into Kurdish/Sunni/Shia geographical factions and we see a mid-level civil war akin to Lebanon. Most likely, we'll see some sort of federal system that comes into being that more or less addresses the core concerns of all factions. They will continue to look warily upon each other, but they won't descend into a fight-to-the-death struggle.

11. I hardly expect disagreement. Leaving Iraq now, meaning immediately, would embolden insurgents and terrorists.

It would be the worst thing we could do right now. Failure is not an option.

12. Our presence in Iraq provides a rallying point for the insurgency and the radical Islamists.

Absolutely. Large portions of the umma see us as Crusaders incarnate. I've always said the quickest way to piss off another nation is for us to ship over in large quantities our 19 yrs olds, either as soldiers armed with weapons, peace corps volunteers armed with good intentions, or spring-breakers armed with utterly unspeakable boorishness.

13. Leaving Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal.

Absolutely not. In fact I expect we'll have a sizable presence there for at least the next 2 generations. Think Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

14. Final statement, last but certainly not least, and I know we\'ve got disagreement about this one: It\'s time for the administration to set a timetable to leave Iraq.

LOL, um, no. We leave when the greater Mid-East region has achieved the stability of say France/Luxembourg/Belgium/Holland/Germany.

Next up we have Odysseus. He tends to lean more toward my political viewpoint than SG6, although we do disagree on many social outlooks.(So much for the "Monolithic Neo-con Conspiracy" touted by the "Progressive" set!)

Do you agree or disagree; are you willing to admit or deny these statements?

1. 9/11 was the work of radical Islam.

It sure wasnÂ’t the League of Women Voters. Osama claimed credit for the attacks. All 19 highjackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda. This is a slam dunk.

2. Post-9/11 there was a consensus in the country to be forward-leaning, meaning to be pre-emptive if necessary to protect against further attack.

Sort of. ItÂ’s not so much that there was a consensus to be forward leaning, itÂ’s that there was a consensus to be tracking with the right poll numbers. The vast majority of Americans wanted to see the government take a more effective strategic stance toward terrorism, but many of the elites did not. Anyone who would have answered yes to question 1 realized that we could no longer count on geography, reciprocity or treaties to protect us. However, there were those who, even after 9/11, continued to act as though the calculus hadnÂ’t changed. International A.N.S.W.E.R. held rallies against the invasion of Afghanistan even after it was obvious that they would continue to harbor the murderers of 3,000 Americans. Some took the attacks as an opportunity to blame America for othersÂ’ hatred of us, which had the effect of trying to impugn the military and intelligence roles for which 9/11 explicitly demonstrated the need. There were some who continued to see terrorism as a law-enforcement problem and had the same issue with military options.

3. Iraq played no role in the events of September 11.

Not entirely. The 9/11 CommissionÂ’s inexplicable refusal to examine the role of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir has left this individualÂ’s actions out of the public eye, but they bear scrutiny. An Iraqi national, Shakir was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and facilitated a 2000 meeting in Malaysia of Al Qaeda leaders which included several of the 9/11 highjackers. He was also implicated in the Bojinka plot, a previous Al Qaeda plan to use aircraft as flying bombs in Asia, which was never carried out. ShakirÂ’s employment at the Kuala Lumpur airport prior to the meeting was arranged through the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia. In addition, there is the Czech intelligence agencyÂ’s assertion that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague just prior to 9/11. In addition, the Salman Pak training area provided Ansar Al Islam, the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda, with a training site (which included a fuselage from a commercial airliner which was used in training highjackers). None of this proves that Iraq played a role, but it certainly implies Iraqi knowledge of Al Qaeda operations and provision of logistical support to the same.

4. Iraq was nevertheless perceived by American and foreign military and intelligence operations to pose a threat, based principally upon the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.

Yes and no. Iraq was certainly perceived as a potential threat, but his WMD arsenal was not the sole reason. The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARYFORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 contained 26 causus belli for the Iraq war, including terrorism, material breaches of UN resolutions, violations of the Desert Storm cease fire terms, and of course, state sponsorship of terrorism. And there is no doubt that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism throughout the world, providing safe haven for terrorists and training sites (remember that airplane fuselage at Salman Pak?). Then there are the terrorists to whom Saddam provided a safe haven. We captured Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro highjacking, in Baghdad. Abu Nidal leader Sabri al-Banna enjoyed years of sanctuary in Iraq. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, Al QaedaÂ’s chief operative in Iraq, was welcomed by Saddam, as were numerous other operatives when they were driven from Afghanistan. Throw in SaddamÂ’s payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and his use of terrorists to attack Iraqi expatriates throughout the world, and terrorism becomes a compelling reason to eliminate him.

5. Saddam Hussein's perceived possession of WMDs was the primary reason advanced by the Bush administration in support of the invasion of Iraq.

See question 4.

6. It is now apparent that Saddam had no WMDs, meaning the Administration's predicate for going to war was faulty.

No. ItÂ’s apparent that he found a way to get rid of them, either through destruction or transfer. The recently retired Chief of Staff to the Israeli Defense Forces, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, told the NY Sun that Saddam transported his WMDs out of Iraq, saying, "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria. No one went to Syria to find it." This confirms my theory, which I based on the incredibly heavy convoy traffic between Baghdad and Damascus for the six months prior to the war, while we were trying to get the UN to enforce its own resolutions. It must also be pointed out that WMDs, by their very nature, are compact. SaddamÂ’s entire anthrax arsenal, once estimated at 5,000 liters, would fit inside the average garage (imagine a stack of 2,500 2-liter Coke bottles and you get the idea of the volume, which isnÂ’t much). 1 liter is the volume of a cube that is 10 cm on each side, so one cubic meter is 1,000 liters. ThatÂ’s two truckloads, tops.

7. There can't be any disagreement about this. With or without WMDs, Saddam Hussein is nevertheless an SOB.

One would think not. However, the issue is not whether Saddam was an SOB. When people try to make the absurd claim that “George W. Bush is the real terrorist", they’re obscuring the monstrous records of Saddam, Bin Laden and Zarqawi in order to score cheap political points.

8. The fact that the Administration was wrong about WMDs does not mean that the President lied on that subject.

IÂ’m not so sure that the administration was wrong on the subject. Saddam had to have used something to gas the Kurds. And even if the administration was wrong, it was in great company. Bill Clinton did use SaddamÂ’s threat of WMDs as the sole reason to launch missile attacks against Iraq in 1998 (as opposed to LewinskyÂ’s threat of headline-creating testimony on the same day) with extensive backing from Senate Democrats two whole years before George W. Bush took office, and even then, he wasnÂ’t alone in this assessment. Every intelligence agency in the world had the same beliefs. BritainÂ’s MI5 broke the story (which it continues to insist is accurate) of SaddamÂ’s attempt to buy Nigerian uranium.

9. I know we've got controversy on this one, the war in Iraq is going poorly.

The only controversy on this one is between people whoÂ’ve been there or whoÂ’ve listened to us and people who havenÂ’t and wonÂ’t. By any measure, things are improving dramatically. The number of terror attacks during the last election was one-tenth the number that ZarqawiÂ’s organization pulled off during the previous election. This is partly a result of his loss of a large chunk of support from Sunnis whoÂ’ve abandoned terrorism to try to work within the political process, and partly his loss of so many operatives that heÂ’s unable to sustain the same OP-tempo. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Critics of the war like to scream about our casualty numbers (which would be more credible if theyÂ’d ever given a damn about living US troops), but they never look at terrorist casualties. In order for an insurgency to function, it has to kill ten conventional enemy soldiers for every one of its own losses. WeÂ’ve inverted that ratio. ZarqawiÂ’s forces lost almost as many fighters in one battle, Fallujah, as we have during the entire war. Those casualties and his loss of support demonstrate that his operations are not sustainable at their current levels. WeÂ’re winning. YouÂ’d have to be blind not to see it, but there are those who remain deliberately blind to reality.

10. It's entirely possible that when all is said and done, we will have facilitated the replacement of Saddam Hussein with a leadership regime in Iraq that is beholden to Iran and unfriendly to the U.S., albeit one that does not equal the evil of Saddam nor the type of threat he could have become.

Possible, but not likely. The Iranian and Iraqi Shia had a schism at the time of the Khomeinist revolution which is instructive. There is a doctrine in Islam which allows a “learned” man to assume responsibility for someone who is incapable of taking care of themselves. This usually applies to widows, orphans, the infirm, etc. Khomeini applied this doctrine to an entire nation, in stark departure from centuries of Shia ideology, which asserts that until the return of the Twelfth Imam, no one is qualified to rule as Caliph, or successor to Mohammed. The Iraqi Shia don’t accept Khomeini’s apostasy and it is for this reason (among others) that Ali Al Sistani has opposed any alliances with Iran. Also, the Shia, while a majority, cannot govern without the Kurds, who are Sunnis. There are Kurds in Iran, as well, who are viciously oppressed by that government. The Iraqi Kurds would resist any alliance with Iran. Finally, the Iranian Shia detest their government. The mullahs have lost their legitimacy and the vast majority in Iran wants them out. It is far more likely to see a pro-US movement in Iran develop in close ties with Iraqi Shia than the reverse.

11. I hardly expect disagreement. Leaving Iraq now, meaning immediately, would embolden insurgents and terrorists.

D-uh. Not to mention collapsing the Iraqi state that we just spent the last three years building.

12. Our presence in Iraq provides a rallying point for the insurgency and the radical Islamists.

Only in the sense that it forces them to fight in what was previously their own territory. The Iraq war has placed the terrorists on the strategic defensive. They have no choice but to fight to destabilize Iraq because they know, as our media does not, that a US victory there will be devastating to them. First, just from a logistical point of view, Iraq separates Syria and Iran, making mutual support between the two remaining terror states far more difficult. Second, Iraqi political freedom is acting as a catalyst throughout the region. IranÂ’s mullahs know that they are extremely unpopular (a poll that they commissioned and then tried to suppress showed over 75% want them out, and antigovernment riots are now common, although oddly unreported in our objective media) and they know that their people see Iraqi Shia having free elections and want to emulate them. Zarqawi considers democracy a violation of Islamic law and every vote is an ink stained finger in his eye, a significant issue in a shame/honor culture where unanswered acts of defiance weaken him daily. Syria was forced out of Lebanon because the Lebanese were galvanized by the sight of free elections in Iraq. Dictators throughout the world have had to reassess their options in view of our commitment to democracy and our willingness to fight for it, for they know that it only took one crack in the Berlin Wall to force the collapse of the Soviet Union. If we succeed in Iraq, the terrorists and their sponsors fail, not just there, but throughout the world. Those who govern through fear can't continue to rule if they are seen as impotent.

13. Leaving Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal.

No. Stabilizing Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal. Then we can think about leaving.

14. Final statement, last but certainly not least, and I know we've got disagreement about this one: It's time for the administration to set a timetable to leave Iraq.

“Mr. Roosevelt, now that Germany has surrendered, what is your timetable for withdrawing from Europe?” Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? But that’s exactly what this question is asking. We were unable to withdraw from Europe for years after WWII, because of the need to rebuild the crushed infrastructure and to ensure that the weakened states did not fall prey to the new totalitarian threat of the Soviets after the defeat of the Nazis. The situation in Iraq is almost identical to this. We are rebuilding critical infrastructure and getting the Iraqi economy on its feet (a major accomplishment, since Ba’athism was a socialist doctrine, guaranteeing economic as well as political horrors on the people of Iraq) while standing up security forces which will be able, in the long run, to stand up to the hostile neighboring states which have a vested interest in the failure of democracy.

Besides, weÂ’ve already had a timetable in place, although the same people who oppose the war refuse to see it. The National Transitional Assembly election, the Constitutional Referendum and the parliamentary election were all held on a schedule that was established during the first stage of the liberation of Iraq. Each of these went off on schedule, despite the clamor to postpone each one because they were sure that the security situation wouldnÂ’t allow them to be held. This was simply wishful thinking from those who want to see us lose. Now, itÂ’s true that we donÂ’t know when the Iraqi government and security forces will be able to function without our aid, but we have stood up an army, from scratch, of over 200,000 soldiers in over eighty battalions, each with a functioning headquarters, in just over two years. ThatÂ’s an amazing feat. We will continue to make tremendous progress and eventually, Iraq will be able to stand by itself, but until then, we cannot let our work be destroyed by an early withdrawal, whose only motivation is the desire by some of our political opportunists to see an American defeat blamed on this president.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:47 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 3668 words, total size 23 kb.

Not to long ago I put up a post and a link to a query: Where are the Heroes?

In that post I mentioned a man that has been put up for the CMH(posthumous), and asked just how many of you had seen news stories about him...

Well, here is the story of another hero, and I doubt that you read much about him either. In the news, he'll be mentioned as "another soldier died in Iraq today, from wounds inflicted by an IED."

But the FACT is that the IED didn't inflict that grave a wound; this man literaly burned himself to the point where he didn't survive treatment by REPEATEDLY re-entering the Bradley that he and his team had been riding in to rescue teammates that had sustained shrapnel wounds from the blast and couldn't escape the burning vehicle unaided.

This man DIDN'T have to die, his initial wounds were minor, yet he went back repeatedly into a conflagration to save those men that had been entrusted into his care. And upon reaching the Aid Station, his only concern was for those men.
This man deserves, at the minimum, a Bronze Star....I would contend that he deserves the CMH. Yet even in the linked story, his name isn't mentioned, he's merely a memory of the Doctor that attempted to save his life...and as that doctor said: "I met the first of many heroes on the night of the Bradley incident. The courage and sacrifice of this soldier is not isolated. It is the norm here, a daily occurrence."(emph. mine)

The point is, our Media is lying to us by ommission...let John Murtha claim "our troops are broken down" and it's front page news...yet let a man sacrifice his life so that his teammates could live, and he is "another soldier died In Iraq today".

We are fast coming to a point where we have to make some hard decisions about our future in Iraq. EVERY soldier that I've talked to that has been there says "let us stay until the job is done", yet the Media and half of our political animals are clamoring for "timetables" and "benchmarks for withdrawel".

The fact is that we made the Iraqi people a promise to leave them with a stable government and a country with a good foothold on recovery back to a nation to be proud of; and the Iraqis have heard that promise and believed it, as evidenced by the burgeoning numbers of men volunteering to put, not only themselves, but their families, in danger by joining the military and police forces. If we leave before the job is accomplished, we will have made ourselves liars, and shamed all those that made a sacrifice of their body in the effort. We will have proven Al Quada correct when they said that the American people were too soft and had no stomach for a fight. You think the war is swelling the Terrorist ranks?!? Just wait until you see the increase in those ranks when the perception that the U.S. is a paper tiger as Bin Laden had claimed sinks in!

The blood of heroes cries out loud and strong to stay the course and make their sacrifices meaningful, but that cry is being muted by a Media that cares for naught but promoting the agenda of self-serving political animals that use populist meme's to try to weasel their way back into power, regardless of the harm that would be done to the nation.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 3 kb.

Ever wonder what it would be like to expend 850 rounds of 7.62 Nato with ONE trigger pull? (M60/mark43)

Go here and watch a lucky bastard having the time of his life.....it took 1 min and 45 seconds to go through that many rounds btw...

When I was with the ---FD (unit withheld for protective reasons), USAR, I was a member of the small arms weapons certification team. It was our responsibility to provide a safe environment for every USAR unit in a three state area to have a safe place to go to requalify with their M16 rifles, .45 sidearms (officers) and the good old Ma Deuce M60 .50 MG. We provided the range, range personell, and ammunition.

As anyone familiar with government depts. may be aware, a dept's. budget for the next year is somewhat affected by what they spent in the current year. If you economize, in what would be a responsible manner for a private concern, you are actually penalized by a drop in the next years budget...in other words, what you don't use, you lose.

Well, it seemed that we were close to the end of the fiscal year, and due to a change in scheduling, our unit found itself with 5,000 rounds of .50 and 1,000 rounds of .223 ammunition that WOULD have been expended if this change had not occurred, and we would most likely be shorted by that amount in the next year, when we actually were looking for an increase in the TOE, due to an extra two units being added to our schedule then....The Major told the Capt. to "handle it", the Capt., being intelligent, asked the Top to look into what could be done to solve the problem. The Top asked the Primary range crew for suggestions....We told him we would solve the problem, just as long as he didn't ask any probing questions .

Seems that the very next day, we had an urgent request for a range requal for a unit that nobody had ever heard of...considered to be "hush-hush"; the unit was to be deployed and their Top wanted to make sure his people had the requisite range time to be "legal" on paper.

Upshot of it is, the the primary range crew expended all 6,000 rounds in what was the most enjoyable range experience I have ever had, before they deployed to their favorite adult beverage disbursement establishment.

The unit received a 10% increase in their next fiscal budget.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 2 kb.

I keep hearing that the Armed services are really hurting for recruits; that the unpopularity of the war in Iraq is being demonstrated by the lack of new people being willing to serve...funny thing is, I only read that at Left leaning sites/sources...

Go to the OFFICIAL figures, and it seems that that is just another false meme.

Lets see..Nov recruitment figures are out:

*The Army reached 105 percent of its recruiting goal with 5,856 recruits.
*The Navy reached 102 percent of its goal with 2,742 recruits.
*The Marine Corps reached 105 percent of its goal with 2,127 recruits.
*The Air Force reached 101 percent of its goal with 2,407 recruits.

These are NEW additions to the services, mind you.

More importantly, All of the services have met or exceeded their retention goals as well...in fact, in the Air Force, they have instituted a program giving bonuses to "mid-career" airmen with "superfluous" skills to end their terms early...Yep! sounds like a crisis to me!

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Odysseus has a great post demonstrating the paucity of thought in the Liberal arguement that we evil practioners of common sense just aren't nuanced enough to realize that their standard bearers are really supportive of the war effort and the MEN & WOMEN conducting it in Iraq when they say such things as :

"The idea we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."--Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean

or:

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."--Sen. John Kerry

They say that WE take statements "out of context", when it seems to me that THEY have elevated that particular method of "discourse" to an high art form.
In fact, I would contend that a good 80% of what passes for criticism of their opponents methods are really projection of their own sordid methods. I know, how partisan of me. Perhaps....., but partisan or no, it still remains true.

It's funny, but one of the best arguments he made was in the comments:

"The problem with the Democrats is that they know that their base isn't enough to get them elected to anything, and that they alienate the middle."

"The fact is that most Americans want to see us win this war, regardless of how we got there, and anyone who advocates cutting and running will get their fourth point of contact kicked in a general election. By the same token, they have to keep their base mollified because in order to get to that general election, you have to win primaries, and Democratic primary voters are in favor of unilateral pullout, or as we like to call it, surrender."

" So, the Democratic leadership walks a tightrope, trying to mollify activists who would rather lose a war than let a Republican have any kind of victory, and moderates who understand the importance of the war and put their country ahead of their party."

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 06:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Ever wonder about some of the tactics used Iraq, especially the urban combat such as was engaged in in Fallujah?

Here is a short lesson that was published in Popular Mechanics:

STREET SWEEPING CREWS
Illustration by CRANEDIGITAL.COM

URBAN COMBAT IN IRAQ involves unprecedented coordination between air, armor and artillery. Here's a look at some of the typical interactions between Marine infantry units and their support teams.

GROUP A
Arms Patrol
An infantry fire team patrols the street alongside an M1A1 Abrams tank. Fire teams avoid hostile fire--and the main tank gun--by keeping to the sides of the street. Tanks and infantry provide mutual cover: The Abrams draws insurgent fire away from the infantry and provides the house-clearing power of the 120mm main gun. But tanks are designed to engage other tanks in open-field combat. Their imposing size makes them an easy target in a crowded, urban environment. For protection, armored units rely on the grunts walking beside the tank to spot threats in a tank's many blind spots, and to engage hostiles the tank can't eliminate, such as insurgents firing from rooftops at an angle that is too severe for the Abrams's turret.

GROUP B
Rooftop Support
A company commander (1) oversees as many as nine squads at one time (2). Fire Support Teams (FiST), with an artillery forward officer (FO), mortar FO and a Forward Air Controller (FAC) call in and coordinate artillery, mortar and aerial support for the infantry. Two-man sniper teams (3) provide "guardian angel" protection to infantry teams.

GROUP C
Breaking & Entering
If a rocket or tank round is unavailable, Marines on foot must clear a house of insurgents. For protection, infantry enters a house with at least a four-man fire team and preferably with a larger squad. Nobody enters alone, and a strict buddy system ensures mutual cover during room searches.

GROUP D
Aerial Assets
Dragon Eye (4) and Pioneer (5) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles provide real-time intel. Combat Air Support gives infantry aerial cover. Forward Air Controllers talk directly to pilots, guiding them by lighting up targets with a laser designator, or by "talking in" a plane by visually describing the target. Air assets include Cobra gunships (6) with Hellfire missiles and rockets, F/A-18 fighters (7) with precision munitions, and the AC-130 ( , a flying gun platform, armed with a field-artillery-size 105mm howitzer--a favorite with the Marines. "Some people need recordings of running water to go to sleep," Maj. Anthony Petrucci says. "In Fallujah, all I needed was an AC-130 overhead."

If you would like to get even more of a taste of combat in Iraq, go read the entire article: Part 0ne and Part Two on city tactics, and this article on road tactics.

Popular Mechanics can show our troops in a balanced light, WHY can't the "popular MSM?!?

H/T to commenter juandos for the links to the articles.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

All for one and one for all. Major nerve control here! WOW!

Tell ME that we don't have the best of the best!

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 05:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

I found this letter via a new site I had been directed to by the management™ at the Rott. The site is written by a 35 year old female soldier/combat medic attached to the 101 AB, and it's a real eyeopener. I look forward to reading Grey Eagle on a daily basis from now on.

This soldier received permission to let this go into the public domain, as he felt it was important to convey what he feels is the majority view of (at least) his close compatriots. He wants this to be used as letters to your Senators to let them know that the soldiers know WHY they are in Iraq, and WHY they want to continue until they get the job done.

Here it is:

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoonÂ’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday.Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard pleaseÂ…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.
I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most American’s are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and havenÂ’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the PresidentÂ’s lawn and say that America isnÂ’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isnÂ’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasnÂ’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you werenÂ’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldnÂ’t put shoes on your childÂ’s feet?

You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The IraqiÂ’s pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldierÂ’s in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet AmericanÂ’s badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the IraqiÂ’s. Yes there are bad oneÂ’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this countryÂ’s future.
I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyoneÂ’s right to have. Ironic isnÂ’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT Walter J. Rausch and 1st Platoon

It's interesting to note the reaction to the type of forum that Grey Eagle provides; she allows all viewpoints to be expressed with few restrictions, so naturally, those that take the Michael Moore-0n/DNC/Moveon.org?Democratic Underground POV took the first opportunity they could to attack the site with dos attacks and various other low-down underhanded slime that even a spammer wouldn't consider Kosher. Go give her a good word and let her know that there are people here that do believe in the mission and appreciate the sacrifices that our soldiers are making on a daily basis.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:23 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1306 words, total size 7 kb.