Iraqi girlfriends capture GI hearts
Everywhere American GI’s go they end up marrying the women. It is always discouraged by both the local power-that-be and the military.
The bureaucratic maze to be navigated is incredible and both parties are counseled repeatedly that such unions never work out.
Sometimes they do. My Thai wife and I will have been married for 32 years tomorrow.
I wish them the best. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.
Going Where We Haven’t Gone Before
The public having been prepped by the press, the Supreme Court can with little difficulty impose anything at all. The Court now serves as a crowbar with which the Three Cities force on the country things which would never pass in a legislature. Many of them have no basis in the constitution, which might as well no longer exist.
Consider abortion, racial integration, gun control, unrestricted obscenity on television, and the banning of Christian symbolism. My point here, note, is not that these things are good or bad, but that there is no constitutional basis for permitting them. The authors of the constitution, who may be presumed to have known what they meant, saw no objection to crèches or to the Ten Commandments, which were common; nor to laws against indecency. If memory serves, in 1896 in Plessey vs. Ferguson the Court explicitly said that separate-but-equal in matters racial was constitutional.
None of these would have gotten through Congress. But then, none of them had to. Americans are nothing if not obedient.
If you’re not getting Fred’s columns every week, you should. I definitely don’t agree with everything he says, but he makes a lot of sense in many areas.
Of course, White heterosexual males in our age group are not exactly the favored demographic right now. Too many of us can read, write and shoot, are not frightened of guns or people with darker skins and different languages, have actually lived as one of the “disadvantaged” and are entirely too skeptical of what we are told by the government, the”media” and recognize that college students have no idea what they are talking about.
Many have worked in or around government and know that it is not capable of the kinds of conspiracies that it is accused of, no matter if the leader was Clinton or Bush.
We know that all negotiations have to be backed by a threat of some type of force for them to be credible, else they become nothing more than expensive cocktail party chit-chat.
No, just not the right kind of people at all.
Bush Would Add Review Layer for Rules (washingtonpost.com)
The Bush administration proposed yesterday broad new standards for federal regulatory agencies that would require them to seek independent appraisals of the scientific basis for many new rules before issuing them.
The announcement by the Office of Management and Budget was cheered by groups linked to industry but was questioned by advocates who warned that the proposal would paralyze new regulations and stymie enforcement.
That’s because the “advocates” are nothing more that evangelists singing the psalms of greeness. Having to show scientific proof will be an unsurmountable obstacle, because they don’t have any.
The proposal would require agencies to systematically seek outside opinions when evaluating scientific findings or disagreements, a process called peer review. Although such independent appraisals are widely respected in science, critics said the process could quickly get murky when applied to such issues as global warming, pesticide use and ergonomic safety, in which the risks and benefits of regulations would be complex, expensive and politically charged.
This is opposed to the nonpolitical way things are done now.
Evidently the preferred option would be immediate and unconditional surrender to the environmental lobby because…well because they have seen the light!
They are saved. They know the answer, a burning fir tree came to them and told them how to save the planet. They must be given complete and total control over all aspects of the economy in order to save us.
There is no time to show proof, by the time there is proof it will be too late. We must trust them, they only have our best interests at heart. They care and will take great pains to make sure there is fair and above board.
No, you can’t see their financial documents and cannot be privy to the meetings. They will plan and emerge to proclaim to the country and the world what they have envisioned for us. There can be no questions, no dissent, no compromises. The only chance we have is to do exactly what we are told and above all…beleive.
The killing of two more soldiers by the very people that they came to help is tragic. Remove the troops at once so that a free and democratic nation can flourish.
Tim Blair: MAYBE “MAGNIFICENT” WAS A TYPO
Just a reminder: the Magnificent 19 Conference, to be held in London on September 11, is not a celebration. Oh, no no no. Whatever would give anyone that idea?
THE ‘MAGNIFICENT 19’ CONFERENCE IS NOT A CELEBRATION
[T]he event entitled the ‘Magnificent 19’, to be held on the 11th September 2003, is not a celebration, this has not been suggested and this is not our intention. Rather the purpose of the commemoration of the 11th September 2001, is to examine its root causes and the driving force and motivation of the 19 men who partook in the operation, in order to have a clearer understanding and in order to discuss whether the continuation of the causes might result in a recurrence of such events, albeit by utilising different ways and means.
Moreover, it would be more fruitful for all concerned to practise restraint and to understand that the conference entitled ‘The Magnificent 19’ is scheduled to discuss the lives, motives and reasons behind the 19 men who partook in the events on the 11th of September 2001, as opposed to celebrating the operations themselves.
Anyone looking at events over the last two years objectively and in a just manner must surely reserve their disgust, condemnation and calls for arrest, for the real terrorists and bandits i.e. George Bush and Tony Blair. Who have indiscriminately murdered 1000’s of innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq, who have lied blatantly to their public, who are holding young and old in prisons without charge or any evidence, who have wasted the resources of their country and who have branded all those fighting for the liberation of their land and defending their lives and honour, as terrorists
State faces fiscal disaster, but no candidate is facing reality
Democrats, beholden to unions and other powerful interest groups, refused to eliminate spending that the state couldn’t afford, while Republicans, locked into a rigid ideology, refused to give up tax cuts that the state couldn’t afford.
Let’s see if I got this straight?
The Democrats are bad because they ran up the credit cards and drank up their pay check; but the Republicans are just as bad because they won’t just shut up, pay the bills and buy more beer.
Confused? Yeah, me too.
Daniel Cormier is an Army major with the Third Infantry Division at Fort Stewart. He recently returned from duty in Iraq. He wrote the following for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Perceptions make reality, so the saying goes. Sitting in Iraq, trying to bring stability to a nation that has mostly known fear and violence, I was struck by the daily reports and opinions across our nation’s airwaves. The almost-daily deaths, coupled with a pessimistic portrayal of U.S. activities in Iraq, leave me bewildered.
Our daily progress is having a positive impact, but I guess the reporters and politicians sitting in their royal offices in the United States can’t see beyond their next career move.
The magnitude of our task is significant, but so was rebuilding Germany, Japan and Europe after World War II. September 11 made this our problem. I expect our nation’s leaders to start focusing on solutions and quit degrading the efforts of our soldiers and our nation’s resolve.
Robert Kuttner has a column in the LA Times lauding Wesley Clark as a General that Liberals can get behind.
Four-Star Rating for a Wesley Clark Campaign
Actually from what I’ve heard, from admittedly lower level sources in the military than Mr Kuttner associates with, that General Clark is what Col Hackworth refers to as a “perfumed prince”. That is, a pretty boy, that worries more about his image than his troops and spends most of his time working toward political advancement rather than taking care of his people.
[A]mong mud soldiers, he’s known as a guy who never paid his dues with the troops in the trenches and doesn’t understand the nitty- gritty of war or what motivates warriors down at the bayonet level. He’s like a doctor who’s brilliant at theory but dangerous with a scalpel because he hasn’t been there and done that long enough to learn the skills of the trade. In 33 years of service, Clark spent only seven and one- half years in command with troops from platoon to division level– barely enough time to learn what makes a tank platoon tick. The rest of his service was as a staff weenie, an aide, a student, at the White House or at some fat cat headquarters.
Now that is someone that the Democrats can love.
He has been a tough critic of the Bush foreign policy, including the Iraq war. His domestic positions are not as fully fashioned, but he would repeal President Bush’s tax cuts and revisit the so-called Patriot Act.
He has been intent on kissing Democratic ass and promises to keep the money flowing to the bureaucrats. He would immediately take steps to make the country safe for Muslim terrorists. Better a thousand civilians die rather than 10 Muslims be inconvenienced. Smart reading of the political winds for General Clark. But he has had plenty of practice.
[M]any of Clark’s progressive views on domestic issues come by way of his military background. Though it is very much a hierarchy, the military is also the most egalitarian island in this unequal society. Top executives — four-star generals — make about nine times the pay of buck privates. In corporate life, the ratio of many chief executives’ compensation to worker bees’ is more like 900 times.
Apparently one of the biggest problems facing the United States today is that of some people making too much money. Presumably Mr. Kuttner is looking forward to the day that his salary is capped at nine times that of a newspaper carrier. Really?
He has high hopes for the day that President-Elect Clark holds a mandatory formation for all business executives on the White House lawn, informs them that he has seized their companies and lets them know that heretofore their pay will be set by a GS-9 clerk in the White House basement.
Kind of gives you an idea of what Democrats think about private property, free association and those other inconvenient things in the Constitution.
The military also has the most comprehensive child-care system in the United States. And, as Clark likes to point out, everyone has health care. Clark is also pro-affirmative action and pro-choice.
Rather than hearing from Liberal columnists and Generals about how great it is having “free health care” in the military, why don’t you take a survey of current and former military and find out what they think of the whole “free health care” thing? I’ll give you a hint; most think it was worth every penny.
My favorite Clark riposte is on guns. He grew up hunting, in a family that had more than a dozen hunting rifles. But he’s pro-gun control. “If you want to fire an assault weapon,” he has said, “join the Army.” The National Rifle Assn. can put that in its AK-47 and smoke it.
That’s right. General Clark will grant you the Constitutional Rights that he thinks you need. If you knew anything, you’d be President. Now shut the fuck up, unless you want to be walking a guard post at a motor pool in Bumfuck, Egypt.
Clark is the soldier as citizen. Even better, he’s the soldier as tough liberal. Just imagine Clark, with his real and distinguished military record, up against our draft-dodger president who likes to play Top Gun dress-up. Imagine the Rhodes scholar against the leader who can’t ad-lib. Oh, and he’s from Arkansas.
That’s funny, in 1992 when a draft-dodger Clinton ran against war hero George H.W. Bush, there was none of this talk about military records.
The Liberals are consistent on some things, they would rather the whole country go down the tubes rather than see George W. Bush reelected, and they would like to have a Democrat in power that would fulfill their dreams of a society where everyone is equal (except Democrats, who would be more equal.)
A society where there was no “hate speech” (any speech that did not conform to a set of rules formulated by a panel of “experts” under the guidance of a Democratic Party loyalist.) Where no one is despised for their race or sexuality (unless they’re white conservative heterosexual males) Where all property belongs to the people. (mostly people designated by the party. What? you thought that meant people in general? How naive.)
A society where President-General Clark could walk down the street and lock the heels of the lowest worker and chew him out for not cheering his passing.
Sounds a lot like Cuba to me, but the Democrats are prevented from nominating Fidel, however much they would like to.
I’m sure General Courtney Masseng…er Clark will do just fine.
I am still here. I just have been having computer problems and am only able to access the Internet at short intervals. (providing this works)
Reason Express draws the wrong conclusion from a story on U.S. soldiers using AK-47’s.
The Pentagon and the Bush administration can pretend otherwise, but when tankers from your frontline armored divisions are kicking around dusty Iraqi side streets on foot armed with captured AK-47s because they lack M-16s, something has gone very wrong. Putting enemy weapons to good use is the kind of adaptability you’d expect from American troops. But this seems to be a case of the brass committing to a mission whether or not they can field a force fit for it.
The truth is that the U.S. soldiers use the AK-47 not because they can’t get M-16’s and M-4’s but because from a “grunt on the ground” viewpoint, it is a more desirable weapon.
Yahoo! News – U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s
The AK is favored by many of the world’s fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.
Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use, and they like what they see.Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq’s dusty environment. Many say the AK has better “knockdown” power and can kill with fewer shots.
The American military will probably be stuck with the M-16 for years to come, but whenever the grunts have been given a choice, they have opted to use something other than that piece of plastic which has been regarded as a piece of shit for more than thirty years.