War On Terror News

VA Announces Disaster Assistance After Tornado Outbreaks

May 26, 2011

Help Available for Veterans in Joplin, Mo.

WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced today that special disaster assistance may be available to Veterans with VA-guaranteed home loans who have been affected by recent tornados in Missouri.

“We will do everything we can to help Veterans and their families get through this difficult time,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki.  “We urge Veterans to use VA resources available to help them recover from this disaster.”  

VA strongly encourages mortgage companies not to initiate any new foreclosures in the disaster areas for a period of 90 days.  The agency also encourages mortgage companies that service VA-guaranteed home loans to extend every possible forbearance to borrowers who are in distress through no fault of their own.  This includes suspension of reporting to credit bureaus and waiving late charges for affected borrowers.

Veterans should contact their insurance company as soon as possible to file claims for losses.  At the same time, they need to contact their mortgage companies to let them know their circumstances.

Veterans should also start the FEMA disaster application process as soon as possible by calling 1-800-621-3362.  Low interest loans, cash grants, and housing assistance may be available from agencies associated with the disaster recovery effort.

VA has information available on its web site (www.benefits.va.gov/homeloans) that provides basic guidance on options veterans should consider following a major disaster.  Veterans may also contact their nearest VA Regional Loan Center at 1-877-827-3702.

For updated information on eligible counties, visit the “Are you a disaster survivor?” section on the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/index.shtm.

Q&A: @LibertyLynx Alleges That Not Ignoring History Makes Us Revisionist

Normally, I ignore this kind of attack, but this one was just too interesting and hypocritical to not toy with.

Earlier, we published an article on a number of Albanians, who happened to be Muslims, who had risked their lives to protect Jews persecuted by Nazi Germany.  It's a rather interesting story that one rarely hears about when it comes to WWII and the Holocaust.  It turns out that a well known photographer spent several years hunting down the families involved and taking pictures that are now on display at a Jewish Temple in St. Louis.

Though I suspect Ahdiminijihadist wouldn't like the story, the backlash on Twitter was from only one twit who professes a pro-Israel viewpoint.  It wasn't that @LibertyLynx thought the story untrue, but that she didn't like some that are publicizing the story.

How Long Should We Be in Afghanistan? Is Winning an Option?

The question could as easily asked: "How long should we stay in Iraq?"  But, unless some thing major changes the current situation, the answer is about a year longer than Candidate Obama said we would.  An agreement has been signed which spells out how much longer we're allowed to stay.   So, let's address the length of stay in Afghanistan, where our ally has not indicated any desire for us to leave anytime soon. 

Our enemy has, of course, repeatedly indicated they want us out.  It's pretty simple to see why: the enemy knows that we impede their desire to impose a tyrannical dictatorship over the Afghan people.  The enemy knows that it would be much easier to establish control over at least some area, if the US, the UK, Canada, and NATO, along with many other allies weren't there.

The pertinent focus of the question is what should be our criteria for leaving?  The American People at

Why Are Combat Veterans Supporting Our General?

I can tell you why I stand up for Supporting Our General. I've been on the ground.  I've had to choose between buying the gear I needed or doing with substandard gear from previous decades.  I've experienced getting a free beret and being denied modern boots.  I've been on the blunt end of policy afflicted by political motivations.  But most importantly, I know what happens when someone far from the battlefield attempts to override the Commander in the fight.

But I am but one Veteran and cannot claim to speak for everyone.  I cannot claim that every Troop agrees with my position.  In fact, I can guarantee that some disagree.  The military is made up of every segment of American Society, including those of the left and right sides of the aisle.  Officers are by UCMJ prohibited from speaking out against the CinC.  Soldiers are by UCMJ prohibited from participating in Uniform about politics.  Few will risk stepping across that blurry line or risking UCMJ to openly state their position.  I was quiet for decades, except for to a few close associates.

So, what are other Veterans, what are other combat Veterans saying?

How/Why is The "War of Necessity" Quickly Losing Support

Unbelievable.  Astounding.  Surprising.  That is my reaction to WaPo/ABC poll that Americans are turning against the War in Afghanistan, against the "just war," against the "war of necessity" that the current POTUS campaigned to support, to properly resource.  Until only weeks ago, the only organizations I knew of that actively opposed the War in Afghanistan were the IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) who needed a new mantra when they saw the War In Iraq succeeding and ending and Code Pink, which had a partial change of heart after actually seeing things on the ground in Afghanistan.

It was less than 12 months ago that Afghanistan was the popular war, the one that a whole political party claimed was where we truly needed to focus our efforts.  In my mind, the biggest danger in January 2009 was that the other party would attempt to get their revenge on their rivals for undermining support of the Iraq War.  Seeing symptoms of that possibility, I challenged them then to ask themselves what had changed.  It is unlikely that my words effected today's reality.  That party seems committed to Victory.

The Democratic Party Politicians, on the other hand, now seem split over whether or not to support the war their Presidential Candidate campaigned on.  The pre-eminent question in my mind is how did opinion change so quickly and why is half of that party undermining the very thing they campaigned on barely a year ago?  Is there a wing of the DNC trying to undermine the President they put in power?  How can those opposing their standard bearer's campaign slogans convince their constituents that what they said last year is so wrong this year?

Q&A: More Troops In Afghanistan?

More than one person has recently asked us, me:

"Do you support the call for more Troops in Afghanistan?"

My answer is the same as it was when asked the same thing about "The Surge?"  Why?  What is different that would change my answer? A different commanding General?  A different Joint Chief of Staff?  A different Commander in Chief? A different political party in charge?

The Bill of Rights & 1st Amendment

As a Veteran, who has sacrificed and risked all for Our Constituition, Our Bill of Rights, Our Security, Safety, and Freedoms, I recognize there is a big difference between responsibilities that come with rights and laws restricting rights.  I encourage all Americans and particularly all Troops to read and know what Our Troops swear to protect.  It can be quite frustrating when Our Rights are abused, when the enemy or the media misuses Our Rights against us.

It can be tempting to propose a ban on those that abuse or misuse their "rights."  It can be telling that some use their 1st Amendment rights to argue against others' 2nd or 5th or 10th Amendment rights, because they simply don't know what the Bill of Rights actually say.

How Global is The War On Terror? Part 2: Europe & Asia

Clearly the Islamist Struggle and terrorism is evident in Africa and in Afghanistan & Pakistan.  This alone would demonstrate a trans-continental war waged by our enemies from Africa to Central Asia.

But the battle extends into Europe as well.  Iran and Al-Qaeda are both active in Turkey, attempting to undermine the hidden example of secular democracy in a Muslim Nation.  Both elements are using both legal and atrocious means to overthrow democracy there.  Not only are Turks subjected to propaganda in every form, including at Mosques, but also the advent of political parties attempting to change the government from within the system.

Turkey's democratic and economic successes over nearly a century (post WWI) are the most dangerous message easily evident to the Persian People. Iran fears that seeing that success will induce its people to do exactly what happened in the aftermath of their recent elections.

The Treaty of Versailles and Afghanistan

Did the Treaty of Versailles have anything to do with Afghanistan? Well no, not directly, but the inherent attitude that permeated the Versailles Treaty did.

You see, throughout most of the last half of the 19th century the British Empire and the Russian Empire were locked in what became known as the Great Game. They were fighting for control over the area that would become known as Afghanistan. The British wanted to secure their northern frontier in India, and the Russians wanted to continue their march towards a warm water port.

As they signed various treaties with one another, and certain Afghan Tribes they drew up boundaries for a country, that had never been a country. To make matters worse the British signed a treaty with Emir Khan of Afghanistan in 1893 laying out the Durand Line. This was supposed to designate the line in the sand between the Afghan Tribes and Pakistan. The British had fought battle after battle with the Afghan Tribes that had not fared well for them. Establishing a border was seen as a way to secure their possessions within present day Pakistan.

But what did this line in the sand do? Well it doesn't exist. It is just that, a line in the sand. To make matters worse, it split the Pashtun Super Tribes in two between Afghanistan and Pakistan. People in the

The Hardest Job in The Army

Perhaps the most difficult question asked of me:

"I especially enjoyed reading through the "In the Troops Words" and "Veteran/Soldier Health" sections.  One topic I'd like to read about, and perhaps I haven't stumbled upon it yet on your site, is about the families and children of soldiers -- more specifically, the impact of military service on kids, whether they have a dad or a mom in the military." Contributor with a women's health web site, www.EmpowHer.com

It looks to be a great site, but far outside my area of expertise.  As a former Senior NCO, I've dealt with the Troops side of the issue.  As a Veteran that has seen the effects of Jody and the suspicions of Jody, I've on occasion seen the paranoia that results from that suspicion.  Generally my role has been to help the Troops, not the families in dealing with the effects of Military Service on Families.

There has however been one case in particular that opened a whole new side to things.  A couple of years ago, a great woman who had recently made my acquaintance had just sent her son off to Marine Basic, Boot Camp as they call it.  The saga that ensued created a lasting friendship, a lot of stress on her part, and many laughs on my end.

See, I knew the realities behind the scary stories she heard.  Instead of dealing with the "momma's boy," I was dealing with momma.  I encouraged her to send him all kinds of goodies, to call and make sure he wasn't having too hard of a time, that he was getting enough rest, and all kinds of things that would feed the fodder of a Drill Sergeant's Dreams of reasons to scream. 

I knew he was going to be pushed harder and farther than he or she ever thought possible, but never

Irreconcilable Differences

Philosophically, Politically, And Psychologically, we simply cannot reconcile the fundamental differences.  From a tweeter:

@WOTN I don't know if you've heard, but officially it is not called the "War on Terror" any longer. I'm not a Bush fan.6:08 PM Apr 7th from Power Twitter

@WOTN Not sure why you're following me, I'm clearly not interested in your viewpoints, but I did want to point out that it is no longer WOT.6:28 PM Apr 7th from web in reply to WOTN

There were more in this flurry of messages from the particular tweeter as I offered to open a dialogue with her in hopes of explaining that while we had not bowed to the ban on descriptive terms in favor of political correctness, we hold no animosity towards members of political parties and still await the new administration's decision on what to call the Current Conflicts.

 

Alas, our desire for dialogue was shut out before we could offer any answers to her bewilderment that we would be interested in her point of view.  Nevermind that we are a potential customer of her business aspirations: Web Design.  The new media War On Terror News publication does not judge its readers based on the party on their voter registration card. 

 

We don't desire to get you to change that party.  We want all Americans to be fully informed on the Valor, Victories, and Generosity of Our Troops.  We want all political parties to actively work towards the safety and security of our Nation.  We want the politics of hate to end and for rational discussion and dialogue to begin.

 

In fact, the goals of our Nation, of freedom, of rights, of democracy itself, are in the hands of the Democrats, the party in power, not the Republicans, who are afforded only the role of vocal opposition to the bills being passed and signed into law.  No, I don't discriminate against anyone based skin color, sex, nor even political party. The fact is I am without a political party.

 

This publication stays away from the discussion of politics, unless politicians decide to put their noses into military matters, and generally only if they do so in a negative manner.  It is the personal belief of the editor that both sides of the aisle should embrace America, Our Troops, and Our Security.

 

We do not turn away readers because of their party, nor do we ignore the words and policies of those that disagree with what we endorse.  The irreconcilable differences are not that someone dislikes the name of our Current Conflicts.  It is that because they don't like it, they refuse to open a dialogue to discuss the matter.

 

Even after the current administration decides on a name, this publication is unlikely to change its name.  This decision is as much a matter of tradition, name recognition, and history, as it is about clear description.  We are at "war" and the enemy are "terrorists."  We're not in a crusade.  The enemy is not all of Islam.  It is not even a majority of Islam.  The enemy is a very small minority that heretically claim to be Muslims while subverting the religion and according to the Koran are sending their own members straight to hell, while lying to those ardent supporters.

 

And while I believe the tweeter to be a highly intelligent individual, I am disconcerted that while she implies to be a follower of the "party of diplomacy," she would so readily shut down dialogue with a fellow American over three words she believes should be removed from the lexicon.  Let's face it: if you are unwilling to have a discussion with peaceful, mature fellow Americans, you will be unable to diplomatically resolve greater issues with a resolute enemy that has sworn to kill you.

 

Disagree with the reports or the opinions of this publication?  There is a comment section at the end of every article.  Be mature.  Be logical. State your opinion.  We provide an email address.  You may have your own blog.  Feel free to link to the article.  Feel free to send a trackback.

 

The editor of this publication has actively protected YOUR right to free speech and reserves the right to counter your opinions with his own right to free speech.  But this publication provides the news that the "old media" or "legacy media" refuses to publish.  If you are unwilling to know the rest of the story, can you truly form an informed opinion?  Or are you just following the herd based on empty slogans?

War on Terror News©2009, ARM, all rights reserved.

And you're still welcome to weigh in with your best idea for the new name of The War On Terror. 

A surprising find: the poll here finds that 1 in 3 believe we need a different name.  On the other hand, I seriously doubt Gordon Brown, Donald Rumsfeld, Gen Myers and a dozen other prominent members of the UK and USA took the time to voice their distaste of the name "War On Terror" consecutively.

No real suggestions in there though.  And the commentators were clearly unaware of the groundtruth, perphaps because they had not personally done anything, not sacrificed anything for the Victories Our Troops have achieved.

Ask A Marine

Many of you are familiar with the story of Marine SSgt. Jeremiah Workman. For those of you who are not, a quick brief. While a Cpl. and serving with Wpns. Co. 3/5, Workman led a squad of Marines on Patrol in Fallujah in NOV of '04. A three hour long firefight ensued, and Workman was awarded the Navy Cross for his actions that day. His citation as well as other blogs about this outstanding Marine can be found on this site, and on the web as well. Since returning from Iraq, Workman has written a book about his experience, as well as his battle with PTSD. A review of this book can also be found on this site. It is due to be released in SEP.

SSgt. Workman happens to be a very close friend of mine. He will be in town for a few days at the end of the month, and he will be staying with me. He has agreed to take questions that any of you may have. If there is something you would like to ask this Marine Hero, please feel free to do so. Questions can be left in the comments section of this blog, or if you have my e-mail address, you can e-mail them to me.

I can not promise that we will be able to answer all questions, but we will make an effort to get to as many of them as we can. Please feel free to re-post this and share it with as many people as you like.

More on SSgt Jeremiah Workman  In introducing his book cover, previous articles on him are linked, including how he earned his Navy Cross and a review of his book.

This is your chance to ask a genuine hero and author questions.  Feel free to leave them in comments here send them in email to waronterrornews AT live DOT com

Are We Winning the War?

What will Victory look like?  How will we know if we have won?  Is it un-patriotic to ask these questions?  On the contrary, it is important that we do.  Citizens, far from the battlefield will ask.  Politicians will pander.

I say this often: The only force on earth that can defeat Our Troops is our own Body Politic.  They cannot do so, with out the ill-informed approval of the electorate.  But the same old adversaries are gathering to mount a new campaign against Afghanistan, as they did against Iraq, as they did against Viet Nam.  They needed to find a new relevancy and found it in both a transitional issue (Gitmo) and one that will be here for some time(Afghanistan).  Jonn Lillyea of This Ain't Hell covers the events in the District of Confusion.

Wars are no longer fought only on the battlefield.  It's not a conspiracy theory.  It is reality that international political ideologies take their message directly to the citizens of their opponents.  It's probably one of the places that the US is least proficient.  "Disinformation," "Propaganda,"and

An Urgent Response? A Call for Mutiny?

On the first full day of Obama's new presidency, a little more than 24 hours after he stumbled through his oath in office, I have received an urgent call to spread the word that Our Troops should disobey orders.  There have been similiar calls from the opposite side of the spectrum for the last 8 years. 

Let's be honest here, not too many Veterans and not too many Troops voted for the new CinC.  His decision to snub Our Greatest Heroes last night is unlikely to endear the Military and Veterans communities to him.  There have been allegations made that he isn't even an American Citizen.  A Veteran and Neighbor sends me an message stating that his message in his blog has been hacked and suppressed, erased to be more precise.  Luckily, he had maintained a copy of his work which in part asks:

"But, what if the intruder purports to be the president?"

"And, what if the sentry truly believes that the man installed as the president is in that position unlawfully?  Which order does he obey -- the standing general order to keep the area secure, or the immediate verbal order of an imposter commander-in-chief?  This is a real and legitimate question."

There is no doubt in my mind that Tom knows, understands, and is committed to both the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He quotes it in this passage:

"Rule 916 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), "Defenses", especially subsections (c) and (d), makes clear that not only should a military member not be charged with a UCMJ offense for not obeying an unlawful order, but also that said military member does, indeed, have an "affirmative duty" to disobey an order that he knows -- or, "that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known" -- to be unlawful.  The commentary of Rule 916 also cites Rule 801(e), stating that the question of whether the person giving the order was in a lawful position to give said order becomes an interlocutory question."

For the last eight years, groups such as the IVAW have used similiar arguments to call for the Mutiny of the Military against the orders of Officers and CinC they have sworn to obey.  While I support the right earned by Tom to the First Amendment, I cannot support his call for disobediance.  The case Tom makes rests on two things: 1)an allegation that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and 2)a belief in the validity of the argument by Servicemembers.

I've seen the arguments on whether or not Obama is a Natural Born Citizen or not.  I hope that those arguments will be heard by the appropriate authorities and resolved with finality.  Neither I nor any member of the US Armed Forces from E-1 through O-10 is that appropriate authority.  It does not matter that neither Joe Soldier nor I voted for the current CinC. 

It does not matter if

Q&A: Progress & Protecting Refugees on the Battlefield

I apologize for the delay on this.  Yesterday was an eventful day:

I just can't get my head wrapped around the fact that after 7 years that there isn't more signs of progress. I was reading an article last night about the returning refugees from Pakistan. It stated that there were over 260,000 living in tent cities. In the middle of winter, many are literally freezing to death. Many had no food. So now my question is this, Why hasn't more been done to take care of those Afghans? ~Ky Woman (In comments here)

Well, I can't accuse you of not asking the tough questions.  There is not a simple answer to these inquiries.  I wish there were, just as do our Military Leaders.  Part of the answer, that refugees and their ailments are a fact of war that seems impossible to overcome is in no way satisfying.

In a perfect world, combatants would not impact the lives of non-combatants, but in a perfect world there would be no war.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and it is unlikely that we will in the foreseeable future.  Unfortunately, there will likely always be the evil-doers, or psychotic if you prefer.  The nature of humanity is that some will prey on others and that is best described by LTC Grossman and the adaptation in poetry by Russ Vaughn of his work which I reposted here earlier today.

As I have stated many times, the war in which we are currently embroiled is truly a war of good vs. evil.  In recent history, there has been no other that pitted such atrocious enemies against Troops as honorable as our own.  This is made clear in one of the most important articles I've posted on Afghanistan, yesterday.  It is based on the findings of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission which is referenced and downloadable in the Article "Crimes Against Islam." 

The cited report is long overdue.  It catalogs the manners in which our

Q&A: Why Can't We Get it Right in Afghanistan?

From a Regular Reader:

 "Do you see now the same things (mistakes) being repeated from the time you were there?  I just wondered.  Some of the blogs I've read the archives on, some of them quite out dated as well as the owner no longer writing, is that the blogs that are currently in country now speak of the same problems.  I mean, honestly, why can't we get this right, and change the things that we know to be wrong?"

Well, that's more than one question, but they're related and pertinent.

One of the things is,

Q&A: Where is the Israel-Gaza Coverage?

"Why is WOTN so quiet about the Gaza Conflict?" (friend)

That is a very pertinent question.  WOTN has established several criteria for reporting:

1) Is it factual?

2) Is it provable?

3) Is it pertinent?

The Gaza conflict is being widely reported (at least at the moment) and with great emotion.  We make every attempt to remove emotion from reporting at WOTN. 

Israel/Palestine is however in many respects the birthplace of

Q&A: Shift in Operations from US to Iraqi Forces (COIN)

A Friend asks:

"I've noticed that more and more stories from Iraq are focusing on the combat actions of Iraqi Forces.  Why the shift?"

Part of COIN (Counter-Insurgency operations) is to demonstrate the competency of the Host Nation forces, to build confidence in their forces with their people (and the world).  It is such an integral part of it, that we moved to that phase too quickly in both nations.  It is such an integral part that the leadership forgot that it was the association with us, rather than the new government that needed positive press.
 
This is much more difficult in Afghanistan than Iraq, because the former is much less educated and hence more susceptible to corruption and propaganda than the latter.
 
But if we wish to leave behind a successful democracy, we have to demonstrate that the new government can stand on its own legs.  If we have truly been successful, it will be necessarily to include demonstration that the new Army and the new Police respect Human and Civil Rights, that they can deal peaceably with peaceful demonstrations as well as violently with insurgents and terrorists, but selectively with only the belligerents and not the suspected civilian supporters.  That they respect the rule of law and not simply implement the law on the less powerful.

In both Nations, there was a fundamental mistake made by the World, the National Planners, and the American people.  The mistake was that everyone failed to realize that we were building their security apparatuses from the ground up.  Many people pointed to our own military training and made statements such as "If we can train a Soldier in 8 weeks of Basic Training, then why has it taken so long to train an Iraqi or Afghani Security Force?"

Well, first of all,

Pearls of Wisdom? The Voice of Experience! "Don't Jump!"

A few weeks ago, I watched a you tube video in which the atheist Penn of Penn & Teller stated his admiration for the attempt by a devout Christian to save him from eternal damnation.  The subject of his story was respectful but convicted and Penn noted that while he did not believe as did the man he respected him for his convictions and follow through in attempting to convert him.

I have come face to face with many dogmatic atheists demonstrating outrage that other Christians of conviction warned of their eternal damnation in a fiery pit that the atheists "don't believe" exists.  My own beliefs are personal and subject to constant challenge from within my own mind.  One day, we will each find the facts of the afterlife, but in this life we should be willing to consider the challenges to the beliefs we hold.  We should be able to examine, critically, the tenets of our faith, and under that scrutiny, it will be either strengthened or unhinged. 

Suffice it to say, we all believe there are more religions that are wrong than there are that are correct, but not all things are as dependent on the abstract as is religion.  Political philosophies have been around long enough that they are mostly proven or not, in history.  Our Elders have lived through the mistakes we consider and can warn us off disastrous paths, if we will simply listen.  And we have our own experiences that we can relate to the novices and younger generation.  But some will learn only from their own pain:

"Mostly, I tend to piss stupid people off, especially when they are being idiots in a no-idiot-zone.

I full believe that when someone is about to jump off a cliff, you have a responsibility to try and keep them from doing it. At the very least you have an ethical imperative to tell them that they are about to do something disastrously or possibly fatally stupid." http://762justice.com/2008/12/27/jumping-off-a-cliff/

I know the feeling Sniper.  I have come to grips with it to a certain extent.   It was just the other day that a particularly arrogantly ignorant member of my family was telling me his latest

Q&A: How Would Americans Respond to a Foreign Tyrannical Invader?

This comes from a reader that clearly has not interacted with American Troops:

"but I would ask a question. How would you behave if a stronger, bullier country would send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to find someone who does not exist and under this cover they would exploit you in the media, take all the raw materials (oil or poppy) out of your country leaving nothing behind and rape your children? Don't you think that if you could get a gun or bomb, you would try to kill some of those soldiers? I think you would. And in the same time, I think most Eastern countries think America IS the nest of global terror."

Realize, I speak from the experience of having actually having served in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.  Realize, I have continued to maintain sources of information on what is really going on in both places.

You have raised several issues, most of which are patently false, though propagated in the propaganda machines of communists and islamists.  I will assume you have come to believe the propaganda, rather that you propagate a known falsehood.

Let's start with the existence and search for Osama bin Ladin being the "reason" and "cover" for us being there.  While OBL does exist, he is not the primary threat.  We are fighting terrorists and searching for people planning and directing the terrorists operations that kill not only Americans, but also Brits, Spaniards, Russians, Indians, and more than any other group: Muslims.

Stealing Oil & Poppy?  The United States has not taken one barrel of oil without paying  market prices for it.  Correction: The US has accepted oil for operations from our old ally, Kuwait.  Iraq has been paid market prices for the oil we have bought from them to conduct operations to ensure their Freedoms, Safety, and Security.  In fact, Iraq is producing more oil today than it did in 2002 and will be producing almost twice as much by 2010.

In Afghanistan, the US has led the way in paving their roads, developing their electricity, building schools, and teaching their doctors, just as we have in Iraq.

Raping Children?  Nope, not a chance.  While the enemy engages in rape and it has been proven that Afghani children have at times been kidnapped to take to Iran, the US Military takes a very staunch position against rapists.  There has been a single case of it and the despicable criminal who had managed to wear a US Uniform was tried and convicted of his crime, never to see the light of day again.  We will not tolerate rapists, period. 

In fact, one need only look back to the protests in London to see that the enemy openly calls for rape.

The differences between the US (and allies) and our enemies:

We build schools.  The enemy attacks school girls with acid and firebombs schools.

We build hospitals.  The enemy attacks Doctors and Nurses.

We risk our own lives to prevent civilian casualties.  The enemy purposely explodes bombs in the midst of markets, mosques, funerals, weddings, and playgrounds.  The enemy purposely attacks civilians and kill more Muslims than does any other force and they kill more Muslims than they kill any other group.

The enemy wishes to force an intolerant, tyrannical government upon the people by use of terror and violence.  The US Military protects the people from terrorists so that they can vote, choosing their own leaders, their own form of government and peaceably change their own leaders at their discretion.

The US teaches Afghanis and Iraqis how to secure their own Nations while preserving Human and Civil Rights of the people they safeguard.  The enemy attacks those people in their desire to set up a tyrannical government that would not allow either Human nor Civil Rights.

Neither Afghanis nor Iraqis are my enemy.  On the contrary they are Our Allies and they are working hard to secure their own Nations from our common enemy.  And that enemy is doing those things which you have falsely assumed to be the crimes of Our Troops.

While our reaction to these enemies began in earnest following the attack on 9/11 which killed nearly 3,000 civilians, this war began decades ago.  The enemies we now fight took our diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1978.  They attacked our embassies in Kenya & Tanzania.  They attacked the USS Cole.  They murdered a wheel chair bound man in the Mediterranean.  They murdered a Sailor aboard an airplane.  They attacked the World Trade Center in the 90's. 

Where our enemies have gained the reins of power, they have run over the arms of young boys with cars, hung women from cranes for daring to reveal her face, stoned women to death for failing to remain in her house, banned young girls from learning to read, hung homosexuals for their sexual orientation, and used those Nations for bases to attack us.

What would I or other Americans do if they came to our shores?  This is not a hypothetical question but an historical answer: We have pursued them back to their caves and freed their people from their tyrannies.  But unlike our enemies, we target only those that have chosen to take up arms against us, whereas the enemy shrinks from us and prefers to kill the Muslims which they hope to one day rule again in tyranny.  And because of our fairness, our generosity, and the freedoms we've protected, we have today two new allies: Iraq and Afghanistan and the respect of the populations of those Nations.

 War on Terror News©2007-2008, ARM, all rights reserved.

Q&A: Is Diplomacy OR Military Action the Way to Peace? (No, Both must be the Strategy)

Re: Are We At War With Islamic Fundamentalist Totalitarianism? posted at 10/23/2008 11:47 AM CDT on a regional forum

tp First post: 1/15/2008 Last post: 10/23/2008 Total posts: 2554

You guys are so funny. Obama never said we weren't at war with Islamic fundamentalists...and the other three never said we were. Stop making distinctions where distinctions don't exist. There is no doubt we are at war with a group of people who hate us....the question is, how do we fight such a war? Well, McCain did sing Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran....so I assume his solution of choice is a military one. Palin is in his corner so she supports that. The problem is the problem isn't country based.....fundies exist everywhere.....a military solution, while it may help in certain specific situations is not and never will be the answer.  Rather the correct answer is to win hearts and minds.  The McDonalds rule of foreign policy applies....Obama recognizes that...so does Biden. You talk to your enemies, build the economies so they have more to lose in the case of a military intervention, and you make it so they have more to lose than gain. Right now the fundies are dirt poor...they have nothing to lose and need someone to blame...we are convenient....but notice that as we empower people economically in these countries....watch how patraeus is talking to everybody and empowering them...getting them to build their economies and really explaining to them they have far more to lose than gain and you will have a model on how to do this correctly. We must lead diplomatically and leave military intervention as the means of last resort....but I also include, in the diplomatic side, blackops activities.

General Petraeus is a military leader.  He has attained Sustained Success in Iraq using a comprehensive plan which includes Military Action, including aggressive targeting of islamist terrorists and militants, as well as reconstruction, construction, and empowerment of people against our common enemies.

I do appreciate that Tek has acknowledged the Sustained Successes of the Petraeus Plan, but must again point out that it does not rest on one simple point of it, but rather the same comprehensive plan that we have enacted on a National/International level and MUST continue to do.

Q&A: When is it Necessary to Risk the Lives of Our Troops?

posted at 10/19/2008 11:10 PM CDT on a regional Forum

EJ First post: 1/18/2008 Last post: 10/20/2008 Total posts: 2510

WarOn's facts are always based on military-friendly reports. Reports he gets as part of some military/veterans newsletter. I don't knock him for supporting his comrades in arms, but I do blame him for taking biased reports as the gospel truth and disseminating them here as hard evidence. He seems to think he is the local authority on all things America, well I was born here too, and I love this nation with all my heart, which is exactly why I would never support placing my brothers and sisters in unnecessary harm, which is exactly what we have been doing for the last 63 years. I would support military action to stop the genocide in Rwanda or Congo or Sudan or Somalia etc etc etc, but Africa has nothing to offer us, so we ignore their plight and feign ethical/moral objections to aggressive actions of countries we shouldn't have anything to do with...like Iraq invading Kuwait. Our nation has become so addicted to petroleum we are willing to compromise our core beliefs and values in order to get it, even if it means sacrificing the lives of our own sons and daughters by the thousands, and foreign civilians by the millions. Shameful, disgusting behavior. WarOn is part of that machine. The combine eating up all that was once great and honest and respectable about this nation. A hearty field is being replaced by a barren dust bowl.

So, you would be willing to risk my life and the lives of my brothers for a cause in which America has no interest, but not one in which we do?

Perhaps you will elaborate on how you risked your own life to help the Africans?  I have risked all in Africa.  I helped Africans attain their dream of freedom, democracy and prosperity. 

And I understand a bit about The Sudan, its islamist government and the rebels that oppose its tyranny.  Do you propose that we prop up an islamist tyranny or that we impose our will over it in support of the Christian and Animist rebels?

And why are you so willing to risk my life in a place where you admit we have no interest, but not in a place where we do?  Again, tell us of how YOU helped the Africans!

posted at 10/19/2008 11:39 PM CDT on a regional forum

EJ First post: 1/18/2008 Last post: 10/20/2008 Total posts: 2510

I haven't done anything to assist any Africans. I have my own field to hoe. Country First right? Which is why we shouldn't be in Iraq or Bosnia or the Sudan or any other nation that doesn't pose a direct threat to mainland USA. If we use humanitarian excuses for situations like Kuwait, yet ignore a real humanitarian crisis like the one in Rwanda...it kinds completely destroys any and all credibility we have as a nation. And it destroys your credibility when you defend the machine that produces those double standards. You have personally participated in those double standards. Which is why you are part of the problem, not part of the solution as you like to claim.

Earlier in this thread, you espoused risking the lives of Our Troops in places where we have no interest, in Africa but not in places where we do, now defined as Kuwait, an ally which was invaded by a tyrant in 1990.

You have, on this forum, complained when Oil & Gas prices rised, yet it is our allies of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, & Iraq that pump that oil.  And it was in this forum, that you stated that Desert Storm was a war of 'about the right length,' but that our current conflicts "bored" you because they were too long.

It was in this forum that you claimed that you would begrudge the police for committing violence to save you from a violent criminal.

There exist within human society about 3% of the population who desire to commit violence for the entertainment of it.  Saddam, OBL, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Bill Ayers, Ahdiminijihadist and others are members of the human race that belong to a segment that many would describe as evil and others as psychotic.  They are/were people who willingly cause violence of others.

Such evil (or psychotic) people cannot be reasoned with while they embark on their deeds.  But they must be stopped, if necessary by the commission of violence on them.  Their dark souls are NOT more valuable than the souls of those they have taken or that they desire to take.

It is Our Troops, Our Police Officers, Our Intelligence Agents that stand between evil (or psychotic) men and you and your loved ones.  It is Our Protectors, Our Sheepdogs, that stand ready to commit violence on your behalf, so that violence will not visit you.

The Iraqi People and the Afghan People have as much right to live peaceably under a government of their choice, protected by it, as do you.  But, you have no right to risk my life in a place that does not hold interests to the well being of our Nation, when our enemies exist in places that do.

We are fortunate in that we have a Professional Military of Volunteers able to go anywhere on earth to root out the evil that would do you harm.  There is only one force in the world that can prevent Our Military from Victory; the US body politic and we have seen in this young Century and in decades past, that they have attempted to do so.  We have seen the US Congress for partisan purposes legislate a political defeat despite our battlefield victories.

We have seen that they use the naivete of the American people, fooled by organizations led by our enemies, fooled by members of Hollywood to overcome OUR Military's Victories and drive defeat for the purpose of getting The Party elected.

But the American People have been shielded and protected from truly knowing the evil that exists in this world, by the same segment of society, Our Military and Our Police, that you find so distasteful.

While I can understand that the mentality exists that affords you that position, as it is demonstrates the validity of LTC Grossman's "On Sheep, Wolves, & Sheepdogs," yours is such an extreme of that definition that I cannot comprehend how any person can hold such an extremely naive position within it.

The bottom line is that evil does exist in this world.  And it is the brave men and women of our Law Enforcement community, and of our Military that risk their lives to stop that evil.  It is the high standards of professionality and morality of our Volunteer Military that protects YOUR rights to undermine their ability to protect your rights.  Evil cannot go unchecked for it holds no sense of morality.  It will not restrain itself but must be restrained by the Men and Women willing to stand up for the rights of the weak against it.

Emergency Preparedness & Panic Prevention Planning

Emergency Preparedness is often viewed as paranoia.  “Survivalists” are often viewed with disdain because they have a plan for events that are unlikely to occur.  But many potential emergencies require the same preparation kit and plans.

As we begin to see the pictures of the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, we also take note of the resulting panic nationally at the Gas Station.  We see these last minute panics often when an emergency is pending.   In coastal states, there is often a run on plywood and grocery stores in the last days before a hurricane.  When I lived in FL, I was amazed at this but saw it first hand in the people I knew.  What they did with the plywood from the hurricane before was beyond me, but the same stuff could have been used for the next one.  A house I personally boarded up for a friend resulted in the homeowner rushing to the panicked Home Depot only months later.

Closer to time and place, we’ve seen a panicked run on gas across the Nation over the last few days.  When the initial reports came in, I calmed those around me: “the market has pushed the price up .10/gallon temporarily and the $5/gallon gas is a localized event in the

Houston

area.” 

But the panic built.  We didn’t need any more gas in our normal weekend but all those that had been putting the minimum amount in their tank for some time panicked and put additional demand pressure on the normal supplies at the gas stations.  The panic resulted in gas stations without gas and prices temporarily spiking.

How many people have a plan in place for a terrorist attack?  People simply don’t like to think about the possibility.  How many people have a plan in place for a hurricane, earthquake or tornado?  A few more but still not that many.  How many have a plan for a house fire or burgularly?  Still not enough. 

Have you ever taught your kids how to dial 911?  Sounds too simplistic to need practice but when you or your kids are in the midst of an emergency, it can be more difficult than you realize.  The increased heart rate, heavy breathing and decreased fine motor skills and decision making capability can have a negative effect on such a simple phone call. 

(While practicing, make sure the phone is off since you don’t wish to actually make the connection.  Practice not only dialing the numbers but providing the necessary information: Who, What, Where and When?  Practice telling the operator the physical condition of people.  Practice taking deep breaths so that the person can understand what you are trying to say.)

Create an emergency plan for your family or office.  Multiple emergencies can have the same plan.  In the event of a terrorist attack or a fire in your building, for example, the building is likely to be destroyed and require evacuation.  Your evacuation plan should include not only everyone knowing how to get out safely but a means of ensuring that everyone did. 

Have a designated place for people to gather for accountability of everyone there.  In a family, the person checking would be a parent.  In an office, it would likely be the managers.  Each boss/team leader accounts for those in their section.  The team leaders would account for their people and themselves to their boss.  People will be panicked.  Practice the plan and practice ‘breathing.’  (Deep breaths calm the mind and body increasing the ability of others to understand what you are trying to say.)

Have a plan for where within the building is safe from catastrophic events.  This is for the case of a tornado bearing down on your location but can also be a plan for a psychotic killer shooting the place up.  The places that will stop a bullet also do well as stopping falling/flying debris. 

And if you’re dealing with a psychotic killer, never ever bow down and just let him kill you.  If you can’t get away from him, make him pay dearly for trying to take you out.  Don’t pull a Mel Gibson and dare him to kill you.  Use the same controls that he has likely practiced in video games and tell him to “Stop.”  Put his psychotic game “on pause.”

But emergency preparation is more than simply having a plan.   Practice the plan.  Begin by walking through it with the normal people involved.  Work out any kinks in it.  Then practice it on a regular basis at “normal” speed.

It is also having the tools to make the plan successful.  The same plan for a natural disaster will help you survive a major terrorist attack.  Things to have on hand include: a generator (and fuel for it), a grill and fuel for it, water, food,

CASH

, plastic, duct tape, candles, matches and lighters, a battery operated radio and flashlights with spare batteries for all. 

The generator is to keep your refrigerator/freezer cold as long as possible.  You don’t need to run it 24/7.  A few hours a day will be sufficient to keep your goods cold, especially if you keep people from opening it unnecessarily.

The grill is to cook that food.  If you run out of fuel, look around for fallen tree limbs.  You can’t bar-b-q on your home stove which also means that you can’t boil water, but you certainly can boil water on your grill with the wood you collect off the ground.  When you fire up the grill for evening chow, throw on some water as well.  Boil it for a minute and it’s purified.

Water: Have at least 6-8 gallons of distilled (or bottled water) stuck aside that you never use (except emergencies).  Use it last.  It is sealed and can last as long as the container.  When the natural disaster is imminent fill up the old milk jugs and other containers as well.  That will stay fresh for 2-3 days until the chlorine evaporates and then it becomes bathing water, which you will want at that point. 

Fill up the bathtub and remember you have 30-50 gallons in your water heater but you’ll need to turn off the supply line to it (to prevent contaminated water from the city supply from mixing with the stored water) and drain it from the bottom drain.

Food: Canned goods last for a long time.  They do go bad but have at least 30 days supply on hand.  Ok, at least 7 days of canned goods on hand.  Eat from your refrigerated foods first though.  Enjoy the good life for those first few days that you have them.  Then start on your frozen goods.  Eat the can goods last.  An excellent type of stored food are MRE’s.  They’re expensive though and have a bad reputation, which means they’re more likely to be kept rather than tapped into during non-emergencies.

Cash: Now how silly will you feel if you’ve forgotten a key item that I have plenty of but you can’t convince me to sell to you on your debit card.  Realize that if electricity is down, not too many people will be accepting debit/credit cards.  I still have some of the same $20 bills that I have carried around the world.  It’s not that it’s bad to have $100 bills but that you don’t want to have to use that for a $20 item that someone has, you really need but he doesn’t have change.

There was much belittling of Homeland Security about the plastic and duct tape because while they put that into the list, they couldn’t explain effectively why.  In their kit, it was there so that you could create a sealed room during a chemical attack.  Simply choose a room (preferably where your emergency supply is) and seal it up with plastic and taped seams.  This would also work in the event of an accidental chemical spill.  You could even prep this room in advance, IF your situation allows.  If you live near train tracks or chemical plants, I’d seriously consider doing so.

But the plastic and duct tape are useful for other emergencies as well.  If you’ve just lost the roofing on your house, you can cover that portion with 6 mil plastic (I recommend a roll of 20ftx100ft 6 mil clear plastic) and if you nail it down through those lost shingles, it’ll keep your house interior dry for weeks.  If you need a smaller piece, you can cut a piece off.  Plastic has many uses including the collection of fresh, clean water.  Similarly, duct tape can hold anything except duct work together, but it will seal a hole in the plastic if you end up tearing it.

The battery operated radio (with shortwave capability) is to keep you informed.  If the electricity is out, your stereo and TV will do you no good and you may not know how long you are expected to be in that condition.  Having that knowledge could mean the difference in enjoying a camping adventure and lamenting on those MRE’s prematurely.  It may make the difference on your decision to raid the local grocery store or to hunker down, but at this time in your life, you will not need a new big screen TV and pair of Nikes.

Spare batteries for everything.  It’d be a bit late to find out that your flashlight batteries are dead. 

Spare fuel: Know how long your generator will run on a gallon of gas and have enough to run it for several days.  Rotate this fuel regularly.  It has a shelf life.  So, at least every 3 months fill up your car with your stored supply and then go get new stuff for your emergency supply.  Implement this part of the plan when fuel prices are normal, not when the market is responding to a fuel shortage.  

How much you store in this manner will depend a lot on your specific circumstances in life.  If you have a garage, you can maintain a supply to fill up your car and keep your generator supply but if you’re in an apartment, you’ll face restrictions. 

But in the normal course of your life, you should not allow your gas tank to be at or near empty.  It doesn’t cost any more to fill the bottom quarter tank as it does the top quarter tank.  And if you keep the tank at ¾, you’ll be smiling when the rest of the world panics to the pump as they have done this weekend.  There are different rules of thumb out there, whether it is keep it above ¾, keep it above ½, or keep it above ¼, but it is better for your car to never let it get down into the sludge at the bottom of your tank.

And these rules of thumb on your car gas tank can be fluid.  For example, if the price of gas is falling, I might switch from the ¾ to the ½ or ¼ rule so that I capitalize on the cheaper prices more often, but if the price is rising, I’ll buy gas more often and keep it full so that I’m paying for the cheaper gas more often.

If you have a pickup, you can add tank capacity with an after market tank as well.  That’s a personal decision.

I would also include weapons and ammunition, though some would consider that paranoia.  When things get really bad and law enforcement/authorities can no longer guarantee your safety (and they don’t guarantee it during normal times), it is up to you to protect yourself and your family from the panicked and the criminal.  99% of the time, 99% of the people will not need to go to this extreme to protect themselves, but it’s a little late if you’re in that 1% without a weapon.

And if you live in a hurricane zone, don't wait for the forecast to buy plywood.  Get it before hand, cut it to the sizes you need, have nails and hammers (or screws and drills) on hand so that when everyone else is fighting over the last sheet of $100/plywood, you're finishing up the installation.

Sandbags: Get yourself some sandbags for your kit.  If you need them for flooding, you'll have them on hand to fill as needed.  You can also tap into  the supplies of emergency management crews when they arrive.

And the bottom line is that during an emergency is the wrong time to be building your emergency supplies.  The time to prepare for an emergency is when there isn’t one going on.  When things start going bad and the rest of the world is panicking, you’ll have a lot of competition and higher prices for those things you’ll need.  Once the panic starts, the most important thing for you to do is to remain calm and that’s a LOT easier when you know you already have everything you need to survive several days without electricity and running water.

As to our current gas shortage, it looks like the refinery at the heart of the matter will be down for a week or two.  No need to panic, but there is certainly cause to conserve the fuel you have on hand.  Prices are likely to return to normal (what they were a few days ago) fairly soon and more importantly the gas stations are likely to have full tanks in the next couple days.  No need to join the panic lines.

War on Terror News©2008,

ARM

, all rights reserved.

Q&A: Is the Cost of the GWOT & Iraq Worth it?

B42 First post: 1/16/2008 Last post: 7/26/2008 Total posts: 2671

The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War's expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it. The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

Every year 40,000 Americans are killed on our highways.

On 9/11, nearly 3,000 people died because they were in an office, working.

Before 9/11, thousands of civilians had been killed by terrorists.

During Saddam's tyranny, 300,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by his regime. (That's an average of 1,000/month)

Every person in today's military has signed and sworn an (re-)enlistment with full knowledge that they would likely go to and fight in Iraq.  They considered the risk to be worth it when compared to the risk of failure.

The cost in the lives of Our Troops is amazingly LOW.  It is 1/4 of 1% of the daily cost of WWII.  It is 3% of the cost of Viet Nam.

Is a civilian life worth more than a Soldier's life?  No.  Is it worth risking one's life to save the lives of others and oneself?  Yes.  A person should be able to live peacefully and safely while going to work in their office building.  If I were told that I would die a violent death and had the choice of fighting tyrants and terrorists, taking some of them with me /or/ sitting unknowingly in an office building as they took me and my colleagues out, I'd choose to go out fighting saving the lives of those that work in that building.

What some would  have us do is simply sacrifice the lives of some Americans, whether civilians or military, when the terrorists choose the place and time of their attack on a peaceful entity.  What the Military does is search out and destroy those that would conduct such attacks.  The Military should NOT be required to be the easy target.  They should be allowed to take the fight to the enemy.

The cost in dollars?  How much are lives worth?  If every million spent saved one life (and there is no way to know how many have been saved), is that worth it?  If every billion spent means one less suicide bomber, is that worth it? 

America faces the most brutal and atrocious enemy we have ever faced.  Our enemies kill their own.  Our enemies kill muslims.  Our enemies kill civilians; men, women and children.  Our enemies kill for their lust of power.  Our enemies are not religious but subverters of religion for purposes of power.  They use a religion but they do not adhere to it.  Our enemies have NO honor.

The atrocities of Darfur are the works of islamists.  The 300,000 Iraqi Civilians killed by Saddam is the work of a despotic tyrant.  The thousands of Iranians killed by their government is the work of islamists.  The thousands killed by Hezbollah is the work of islamists under the command of Iran.  The thousands killed by Special Groups is the work of islamists under the influence of Iran.  The tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by Al-Qaeda is the work of islamists.

The Money we have spent on our Current Conflicts have saved the lives of unknown numbers of Americans.  But we do know that an average of 1000 Iraqi civilians/month will not be killed by Saddam.  And we know that our efforts have reduced the number of Iraqi civilians killed by common criminals, Special Groups and Al-Qaeda from more than 3300/month to less than 750/month.  So, currently, we are saving 2550 civilian lives each month.  Annualized that is 30,600 civilian lives saved.

If we apply that one year of savings in lraqi lives to our current cost in dollars, it would be $21,176,470/life.

But, if the next 30 years in Iraq is only as safe as our best month so far, then we will have saved 150,000 lives compared to the lives that Saddam took (looking only at his civilian casaulties), each saved life will have cost the US $4.32Million.   But the reality is that it will save many more lives than that.  We will never know how many Iraqi civilians were saved by improved education, improved medical facilities, decreased violence, improved infrastructure. 

We will never know how many Iraqis grow up fondly recalling the kindness of American Troops rather than learning hatred of all Americans.  We will never know how many future terrorists were diverted to a life of honor and respect for life, their neighbors and Americans.

We do know that Al-Qaeda fought desperately to turn Iraq into the base of their desired Caliphate (islamist empire). (See the Know Your Enemy Category.)

We do know that Special Groups fought desperately to expand the islamist revolution of Iran.

We do know that had either group accomplished their goals, even if only regionally, they would have killed thousands of civilians, in their areas of control.  We do know that if they had achieved their goals they would have used their new base of power to export terrorism to other Nations, now stable including Jordan, Israel, Turkey, the UAE, Africa and South Asia.

We do know that it is better to send our Troops out to find and destroy our enemies in their lairs rather than allow our enemies to destroy our peaceful citizens in our offices.  And if that were not my belief, I would not have spent cold winter nights sleeping on cold rocks in the mountains on the other side of the world, risking my life to keep Americans safe in their comfortable climate controlled beds.

War on Terror News©2007-2008, ARM, all rights reserved.

Q&A: What is the Central Front In GWOT? Who decides that?

As of 9/11, the Northern Alliance was a group of several tribal rebels, whose military leader had been assassinated two days prior.

Another faction was the HIG, which had fallen out of favor with the Taliban and were fighting it.

In 2003, The Taliban had become the rebels, based in the Pashtun tribes that are on both sides of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.  They have joined with the HIG in an alliance of convenience.

From 2002 through 2007, Al-Qaeda had abandoned the Taliban and focused their attention on Iraq, shamed by the fact that it was their actions on 9/11 which had led to the loss of their stronghold and more concerned with attaining an Arabic Nation situated strategically in the heart of the Islamic world.

The Petraeus Plan aggressively attacked Al-Qaeda in Iraq, pushing them farther and farther back and now their last safehouses are in Mosul as opposed to their oppression of great portions of Iraq in places like Fallujah, Anbar and Diyala.

As 2007 came to a close, Al-Qaeda was looking for the next place to attempt a ruling status.  They opened fronts in North Africa but their attacks on the UN and civilians there turned many against them.  The Government of Sudan realized that they were already in a precarious situation and needed to keep their old ally at arm's length.  Algeria had fought hard for their democracy and freedom from France and resists the attempts by AQ to make inroads.  Egypt has proven a failure for both AQ and (Iranian backed) Hezbollah.  Even the radicals of Palestine and Lebanon have rejected AQ.

So, AQ is looking to return to its roots in Afghanistan, which corresponds to the rhetoric of the left and could likely help get their favored candidate elected here.

The larger question is: Will Al-Qaeda again err about a foreign culture?  Will they (or Hezbollah) attempt an attack on US Soil prior to the elections in hopes of repeating their success with that tactic in Spain OR does their Propaganda Chief, American AQ Adam Gadahn of California remember enough of his roots to advise his boss OBL to avoid an attack lest it put McCain in office?

Q&A: Is there any Proof The Surge caused the Sustained Successes in Iraq

TO First post: 1/15/2008 Last post: 7/24/2008 Total posts: 6128

Replying to: There can be no honest & defensible assertion that the the change in strategy authored by Petraeus, along with the increase in troop numbers, has made a tremendously positive difference in Iraq. AQI has been almost eliminated. Regardless of when the "Anbar Awakening" began, the turning of the Iraqi people against AQI & other islamist groups continued throughout the surge and is part of the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy.  It worked. Petraeus & the troops deserve full credit for its implementation. McCain was right about the surge/change in strategy from the start, & Obama was wrong & remains wrong, unwilling to correct his errors. Posted by WH "It is your opinion that the surge troops were needed to sustain the awakening (if that's your claim). The awakening was doing well pre-surge, so it's just an opinion, not proven."

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf

It is not opinion that it worked.  It is not opinion that he authored the plan. 

What would be opinion is if Obama had attempted to answer the question: "What would have happened if the Surge had not been implemented?"  He was smart enough to say "I don't know" rather than admit that his plan for retreat in 2006 would have resulted in the defeat of the Nation that he seems to desire.

Opinion: If Obama's plan for Immediate Retreat had been implemented in 2006 or 2007 rather than the Petraeus Plan:

Al-Qaeda and Iranian Backed Special Groups would be fighting over the remnants of Iraq today.  Perhaps they would be working out a truce but I doubt they'd be at that stage yet.

The Kurds would be entrenched in the North, waiting out the winner in the South, and hoping that the Turks did not invade based on US assurances that We would use our best diplomacy to assure the Turks that no ill will would come out of the future Kurdistan or perhaps we would encourage the Turks to annex the Kurd territory.

But THAT is Opinion.

FACT: The Petraeus Plan is directly responsible for our current Sustained Successes in Iraq.

FACT: Obama has opposed the Petraeus Plan from proposal through demonstrated Sustained Success.

FACT: McCain called for the Surge when Rumsfeld and Bush still opposed it.

FACT: McCain Called for the Surge in opposition to Bush and Rumsfeld.

FACT: Obama has opposed the Surge from proposal through Sustained Success.

FACT: Petraeus Plan was implemented.

FACT: Violence is down for a sustained period of time since Petreaus' Plan was implemented.

FACT: If 30,000 troops had nothing to do with success in Iraq, then 20,000 would do nothing to change the reality in Afghanistan.

FACT: The Anbar Awakening councils were a change of attitude in 2006.

FACT: Petraeus changed the change in attitude to a concrete program of action against islamist Al Qaeda in Al Anbar.

FACT: Violence peaked post the change in Attitude of the Anbar Awakening and when that attitude was changed into actions by Petraeus.

FACT: Obama OPPOSED the Winning Strategy in Iraq. (Petraeus Plan)

FACT: Obama has ZERO Military Experience.

FACT: McCain called for the Surge in opposition to his party.

OPINION: Obama is WRONG for America because

FACT: He has a proven record of being WRONG on Iraq and has no demonstrable record that he will make the right decisions for the right reasons on Afghanistan.

The facts clearly demonstrate that the Petraeus Plan has brought us Sustained Successes despite the vehement opposition to allowing it by Obama, Reid, Pelosi & Hillary.

One of the best and clearest evidences of this is the graph on page 7 here: http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf

It clearly demonstrates that violence (in the form of enemy initiated attacks) steadily climbed through its peak in the week of 22 June 2007 and then fell off a cliff from approximately 1550 attacks that week to approximately 230 attacks in the most recently reported week.

In those drastic reductions of violence, there are two spikes that stand out: the week of 11 Sep 2007 and the week of 25 March 2008, when the enemy obliged the left side of the aisle in support of their anti-Petraeus rhetoric while he testified to Congress.

At this point, it would be good to look back at the anti-Petraeus arguments:

Winter 2007: "The Surge Can't work.  It's just putting more targets out for the enemy.  There is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

WOTN response: "There is no such thing as having too many friends shooting at the enemy."

The enemy we face is brutal and must be stopped.  There are clear links between Zarqawi, al-Maysara, al-Masari and others to Al-Qaeda.  Each are foreign fighters that have been instructors in Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan pre-9/11

Spring 2007: "The Surge Isn't working: Violence is up."

WOTN response: The Troops aren't there yet and the General is aggressively targeting the enemy.

Summer 2007: "The Surge Isn't working: Violence is up."

WOTN response: The Troops are just getting on the ground.  The General is aggressivley targeting the enemy.

Fall 2007: "The Surge didn't work: Decreased Violence is temporary."

WOTN response: The facts demonstrate greatly reduced violence in many parts of Iraq.  Time will demonstrate if the trend holds.

11 Sep 2007: General Petraeus testifies to Congress.  Obama gives him a campaign speech.  Moveon,org runs "betrayus" ad.

The Senate Passes a resolution condemning the attack on the General.  Obama and Hillary refuse to support the resolution (effectively demonstrating support of the slander).

Winter 2008: "The Surge didn't work: Iraqi Parliament hasn't met Congressional demands."

WOTN response: Iraqi Politicians continue to risk their lives, just to go to work every day.  If two parties in Congress can't agree on simple issues, why do they expect multiple parties in Iraq to agree on contentious issues and who cares about "Carbon Emissions" when Iraq is still securing their democracy!

Spring 2008: "The Surge didn't work: Iraqi Parliament has only met a few of Congressional demands."

WOTN response: Iraqi Parliament was hammering out rules for the Regional Elections while Congress investigated why a Baseball Pitchers butt was bleeding in an elevator 10 years ago and who was at MLB pool party 10 years ago, instead of addressing FISA legislation.  What Hypocrisy!

Summer 2008: "Sure Violence is down and the Iraqi Parliament has met most of the Congressional Demands, but it had nothing to do with the Petraeus Plan the left opposed."

WOTN Response: IF the left side of the aisle had not attempted to play politics and to endorse the slander of a non-political General in September 2007, they would not be in this political dilemna now. 

Facts are facts, regardless of whether they are recognized or not.  Facts do not change based on a "point of view."  Conclusions, Opinions and the meaning of facts may change based on a point of view, but the facts remain the same.

The facts demonstrate that Iraq is safer, freer, more secure, and more democratic today than it has been in decades.

The facts demonstrate that all metrics of violence have been dramatically reduced from their peaks which correspond to the arrival of the last "Surge Brigades" in Iraq.

The facts demonstrate that The Petraeus Plan was called for by McCain prior to approval and opposed by Obama steadfastly through the point it was proven to have attained Sustained Successes.  And that is THE reason why the left side of the aisle continues to attempt to deny it is the reason for Success in Iraq.

But it is easy to see that the left recognizes that the Petraeus Plan has worked: They are calling for it to be mirrored in Afghanistan.  They have confirmed Petraeus to take command at CentCom. (95-2)  They have confirmed General Odierno (Petraeus' recommendation and #2) to take over in Iraq.

IF the left did NOT think the Petraeus Plan and the Surge had worked, it would be morally wrong for them to call for it to be used in Afghanistan.

-"We" did not execute the plan.  General Petraeus and the Commanders that report to him and the Soldiers on the Ground executed the plan, despite opposition from the left side of the aisle.  American Veterans SUPPORTED the plan and the left side of the aisle vehemently opposed it.

-The left is attempting all kinds of spin to remove the responsibility of a Winning Strategy from the person who Wrote it, Requested it, and Implemented it, but the facts, no matter how they are sliced simply support the Fact that the Petraeus Plan worked.

Infrastructure in Iraq is beyond what it was in 2002. (Energy production, oil production, water supply, sewage, telephones, cars)

Freedom is well beyond their peers in the region as well as all of their past.  (newspapers, freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, tv stations, radio stations, elections)

Violence is down dramatically from any point in the past years and decades with the drop in violence occuring at the point that the Surge Brigades began operating.  (Enemy Initiated Attacks, Attacks on Iraqi Police, Attacks on Journalists, Attacks on Iraqi Army, Attacks on Coalition Forces, Attacks on Civilians, IED's, Assassinations, Sniper Attacks, etc.)  All down dramatically.

- Evidently the Mission for that "Residual Force" which was once "in the region" and now in Iraq, has been expanded (progress in Obama's "change" of policies and politics) and with it expanded to 50,000 troops.

Here's the thing: Why would Obama claim 50,000 troops is not enough in Afghanistan but is enough in Iraq?  Why would the partisans claim the Surge is not responsible for Success in Iraq but should be implemented in Afghanistan?

Defeatism has been defeated and the Retreatists are attempting a retreat from their failures to prevent a Victory.

Q&A: Can We Legitimately Compare Iraq & Afghanistan?

[QUOTE]Then how come we haven't applied this same technique to the country with the real problem, Afghanistan? 9 troops slaughtered the other day. 15 more severely injured forcing a retreat from an outpost. There is little doubt that the violence is down a bit in Iraq. But it certainly isn't a vacation paradise and probably will never be one. Ultimately, at the end of the day one has to ask the question: "is there really a country under there or is it just a collection of tribes and families?"  Our misplaced attention to Iraq has taken our eyes off of the real prize, Afghanistan (and the northern reaches of Pakistan), where we should have been focusing our efforts all along. Iraq was nothing more than a diversion....and it worked....we were diverted.
Posted by TP on a Regional Newspaper Forum[/QUOTE]

The only diversion from Afghanistan was the media and public perception.  While the left kept attention focused on Iraq for the last 5 years, Troop Strength continously increased in Afghanistan: from approximately 11,000 to 50,000 (NATO & US 25,000 each).

Despite a lack of media coverage Our Troops continued to search out and destroy the enemy in a terrain and culture much different.

Violence is down "a bit!?!?!?"  It's down 80% from a year ago and there are now fewer civilians killed by all violence (primarily actions of the enemy but also crime) than were killed during an average month BY Saddam's Regime.  In other words, violence is lower than it has been in 30 years.

Violence is down SIGNIFICANTLY in Iraq, in all categories, including US KIA's, Iraqi Security Forces KIA's, political assassinations, and civilian murders.

And what does the media do?  Compare the violence in Iraq, post surge, to the levels that have been fairly constant in Afghanistan.

Does the Success in Iraq mean we should re-assess the strategies in Afghanistan?  Yes, the Military constantly re-assesses what is and is not working.  And the most important development in this particular topic is that Petraeus was recently confirmed as the Commander of CentCom.  This fall (he isn't working the new job yet), he'll become responsible for both, meaning he will be able to put a commander in place to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

But we also have to look at what could cause that to be difficult.  Obviously the terrain:  It can take an entire day to go 20 miles in Afghanistan. 

There is also the fact that half the troops in Afghanistan are NATO and other Nationalities.  Last year, a British General was running the show.  This year an American is in charge.  In the North, the Germans and Dutch have different mentalities, tactics and rotations than do the Americans, Canadians and Brits.

Whereas the ethnic strains in Iraq were the temporary results of Al-Qaeda/Saddam/Iranian backed Special Groups, the ethnic loyalties in Afghanistan run deep into their culture and history.  Though Afghanistan is deeply tribal, and tribal is normally portrayed as negative, tribal society is not necessarily bad.

Some of the things that have brought Iraqi violence levels down to the Afghani violence levels can in fact be applied to both Nations to bring them even further down.  But the success in bringing Iraqi Violence down to Afghani Violence levels must be viewed as a Success, NOT as a failure in Afghanistan.

Q&A: Does the Small Amount of WMD found in Iraq make the invasion Unjustifiable?

" "Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal." Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

Replying to:

          "HE had 500 Sarin munitions left over from 1991.  Great.  What a huge "threat" he is..."

"Tell us, WOTN, since you are a military guy with some knowledge, are those decade old Sarin munitions a particularly effective weapon for someone like Saddam who has NO AIR FORCE?"

"Isn't that why Saddam did not use them, lest he risk a convoy containing such munitions being hit by our air superiority?"

"Those munitions with no air force to allow them safely to be moved into position for firing constituted a zero threat against the US.  The WMD threat from Saddam Hussein was

ABSOLUTE ZERO."  TO, on a regional newspaper forum

Let's look at this in an analogy:

....If the Local Sheriff went to the DA (analogous here to Congress) to get him to go to the Judge (we'll call that the UN) for a warrant (military action) and presented evidence that someone was a murderer, drug dealer, and thief.  And the evidence included demonstration that the criminal had murdered his kids (chemical attacks on the Kurds) by Heroin injection, was buying and/or attempting to buy drug lab equipment and materials to make meth (British Intel report which has never been disputed demonstrating an attempt to buy fissile material and purchases of mobile labs), pictures of cocaine labs (those labs moving across Iraq) and the prior conviction of murder and thievery (invasion of Kuwait).

When the Judge (UN) issued that warrant (UN Resolutions) that the DA (Congress) requested and the warrant was executed (Invasion), if the Sheriff (Military) found only small amounts of cocaine (Sarin gas) and marijuana (mustard gas) drug labs without residue (mobile biological labs) as well as the bodies of multiple victims (mass graves) and illegal weapons (medium range missiles), do you think the powers that be would say "oops, we shouldn't have issued that warrant since we didn't find the heroin and meth?"

Yet, that is the analogical response by TO and other partisans here on this forum and in the Halls of Congress.

This is an analogy and while I know they will respond with "we aren't the world's cop" it illustrates in a way much more akin to news reports we see in our own newspapers the ludricracy of saying that because we ONLY found part of the evidence we expected to find that Saddam should have been left alone to continue his home base tyranny as well as his international support of terrorism and harassment of his neighbors, including our allies, particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And if one were to accept that all of that was a errant warrant, the analogy would continue with the new tenants of that property, upstanding citizens attempting to make good on promises of prosperity and freedoms under attack from gangs (Al-Qaeda and Iranian backed Special Groups).  In this analogy, the left would be calling for abandonment of those upstanding citizens and the allowance of those two gangs to fight it out for control of the upstanding citizens and the properties once owned by a murderer to those gangs because "we lost a couple of deputies" in fighting the gangs that desire to terrorize the citizens living there.

War on Terror News©2007-2008, ARM, all rights reserved.  http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Q&A: How to Deal with Iran and How Obama/McCain will do so.

Replying to:

I do not see what the excitement is about.    The words of a foreign prime minister of a government that is in power because of the invasion and that relies for its sustinance on the American forces.  They have a direct interest in McCain winning.  Obama has always said he would withdraw from Iraq as fast as the military agrees.  So what is new?  What scares me personally from McCain still remains as valid as ever.  He only understands the strength of the US as military power.  He cannot comprehend the other aspects of what makes a great nation: a strong economy and education system.  I do not put it past McCain to turn next to Iran continuing his quest of military domination and rejecting all the signs of deterioration on the internal front.
Posted by MAR on a Regional Newspaper Forum

The subject of how to deal with Iran certainly is worthy of discussion, but I doubt it will be any clearer in November than it is now.

One thing is clear:  Opening discussion with Ahdiminijihadist with no preconditions is the wrong strategy.

Another thing is clear:  The desire to speak with an enemy without condition while refusing to speak with the General Obama voted to put in charge of Iraq is wrong.  One cannot attain a clear understanding of what is needed and what is working in Iraq without sitting down outside of the media spotlight and talking with the men that are leading the effort to make the mission successful.

While McCain has experienced war, Obama has not even experienced a uniform.  While McCain has sat down and listened to the Generals and the Veterans and Troops, Obama has refused.

Yes, the left side of the aisle has continued to spread the fear that McCain desires to start a new war, but there is no evidence of that.  The fact is that McCain has experienced war from many different aspects: as the son of a sailor at war, as a fighter pilot being shot at, as a POW being tortured, as a returning Veteran to an ungrateful Nation, as a Senator having to decide whether or not to send the Nation to war, and as a Father of a Marine fighting in a war.

As such, he understands the negatives as well as the necessities of war.  As such, he is less likely to use military force unnecessarily.

Any discussion of how to deal with Iran must include the realization that Iran is the primary state sponsor of terrorism, as per it's constitution.  Any discussion of how to deal with Iran must include the realization of where our military currently is, who they are fighting and what strains have been placed on them.  Any discussion of how to deal with Iran must include what has and has not worked in the past in dealing with both Iran specifically as well as other tyranical dictatorships and what is currently the situation inside Iran and with our intelligence collection agencies in dealing with Iran.

It must take into account how to overcome past mistakes as well as attain past successes.

War on Terror News©2007-2008, ARM, all rights reserved.  http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/

Q&A: Children Killed in War

posted at 6/18/2008 11:27 AM CDT on a regional newspaper forum:

EJ	So no children have been killed by US munitions in the war in Afghanmistan? Do you really expect me to believe that? Really? Do YOU really believe that?

No, it would be preposterous to attempt such a claim.  In Africa, children were not only killed but pressed into rebel groups and forced to kill their own parents.  In WWII, thousands of children were killed by bombing campaigns on the major cities of London and Berlin as well as many other major cities.  In Iraq, AQ has tortured and killed children for even talking to American Soldiers.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban, HIG and Al-Qaeda have purposely initiated battles with children in their positions in order to make the precise claims you've posted here.

So, the question is not whether or not children have been killed in war, nor even if US Munitions have in fact killed children.  I have posted (about a year ago) a story of a US Troop that killed a child.  It bothered him, but he was given a choice: kill the teenager or allow his fellow Troops to be killed by it.  The kid was raising an AK-47 to kill him.

The question is whether the US Military is careless and callous about the killing of unarmed civilians and the answer is NO.  The US Military has continued to update its weapon systems which significantly decreases the chance of collateral damage (unarmed civilians and their possessions) from being targeted.

During WWII, we had carpet bombing because we were lucky to hit a city with the bombs dropped.  Today we have smart weapons which *normally* can hit a window in a specific building.  Occassionally the wrong target is specified and occassionally the smart technology malfunctions.  Such was the case in Mazar-E-Sharif in 2001, when a GPS guided bomb hit precisely the coordinates targeted, which unfortunately was the coordinates given by the Tactical Aerial Controller, but were his own rather than that of the AQ/Taliban insurrection inside the prison.

The US Military has Rules of Engagement which specify under which conditions a person or location can be targeted.  The US Military trains its troops to protect civilians, target combatants and quickly recognize the difference, even in the heat of battle.

When an errant bullet or missile kills the wrong person, or even almost does, the US Military investigates the incident to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it in the future.

We are fighting an enemy that purposely targets civilians, hides amongst civilians, attacks from amidst civilians and hence civilians will be killed, though primarily by the enemy.  The answer to these tactics is not to stop fighting those that prey on unarmed civilians because on rare occasion a civilian is killed by a US munition, but to gather renewed resolve to overcome that enemy that purposely kills civilians.

To quit the fight is to tell tyrants and terrorists that they are free to kill far more civilians in a day than ALL of our errant munitions kill in a year.  You have previously said that the 3,000 lost on 9/11 and the hundreds if not thousands killed prior to that by terrorists were not worth combatting terrorists.  A possible ratio of this issue is that 1 civilian is inadvertantly killed by US Munitions while protecting them compared to 1,000 purposely killed by terrorists. 

At what point does it become "worth it" to you to protect unarmed civilians while putting at risk Members of the Military?  We are not asking YOU to risk YOUR life to protect others, but don't make it impossible for those of us willing to risk OUR lives to protect others, including you.

Is Military Service a Prerequisite for Office?

When I posted the news that Kent Greenough was running for the 4th District seat of Tennessee (reported here: Another Politician I May be able to Endorse- US Marine Runs for Congress ),  I was a bit surprised with some of the responses in the Regional Paper:

One die-hard democrat that purports to be a Veteran said:

"Since 1921 there has been only 2 Republican's holding the 4th congressional district seat, versus 7 Democrats." FW

And pointing out his wife's Marine MOS as if this were somehow a negative while implying it was Kent's MOS:

"Later that summer, he married Janis Price, also a Marine officer, then serving at MCAS El Toro as the weather services officer." FW

and "Is serving in the military now a prerequisite?"

"What kind of threats did Kent Greenough encounter while serving as a weather services officer?"

Clearly that one has some reading comprehension issues but he did correct himself later.

This response was a bit more interesting and surprising considering the source:

"Lincoln Davis is a piece of crap. Anyone would be better than him. " EJ

But this is the question that I must answer here (by one that often displays the French Flag of Surrender as an avatar):

"Does he have any qualifications other than being a former Marine? " and "I'm all for hiring veterans, but that alone doen't make one qualified for office." IGU

Well, no, it's not a prerequisite for elected office, nor as Jack Murtha demonstrates does it guarantee patriotism, or good judgement.  (Murtha has EARNED the title EX-marine, which is not awarded easily.)

So, why should Military Service be considered when looking at Candidates for Political Office?  Those that serve honorably have done more in 4 years than most of their civilian peers do in 16.  They (generally) come away with a "Can Do" attitude that looks for Solutions rather than someone else to blame.  The Military builds the values of Selfless Service, Integrity, and Resolve.  It creates the realization that we are a part of something bigger than ourselves.

One generally does not have to look far to find Successful Veterans.  Though Veterans are a shrinking portion of our population, they continue to excel in post military life.  Military Life demonstrates a willingness to stand up for Honor and those weaker than ourselves. 

Not every Veteran has been afforded to prove themselves in a Medal of Honor situation, but they've proven that they're willing to put themselves into that situation.  Whether a Clerk during Peacetime or a US Navy Seal in years of Close Combat, our Veterans have proven that they are willing to risk all in a greater cause than themselves.

But, no, Veteran Status alone is not sufficient to prove them worthy of Office.  It is however a good indicator of the type of person they have become.  The Military also has within it whiners and complainers, lazy bums that see political expediency in dishonoring their name and those that are more interested in getting by and getting out than serving their Nation.  We've seen them in the likes of the IVAW and VVAW but the numbers demonstrate their minority.  They are outnumbered 20:1 by the Honorable.

And while I'm more impressed with a Steve Russell type that served in combat, leading Men in life and death to Victory than a Kent Greenough that served honorably during peacetime, I recognize that each has done more than 85% of our Nation's Citizens.

No one can ever take away the Honor proven by Marcus Luttrell, David Bellavia, John McCain or Steve Russell, but Kent Greenough has also demonstrated his willingness to be proven, even if he weren't asked to do so in Combat.  And his post Military record proves my point of why it benefits businesses to hire our Veterans!  And when combined with his Military record demonstrates why we should lean towards our Veterans when they run for Congress.

Q&A: Instant Gratification

Is the following quote the problem with "some" in America?

[QUOTE]Who said I care? I just think you are a virus. I used to care about thte war, but not so much...it's gone on too long. I'm a product of the video game generation...give it to me now...ya know? Gulf War 1 was just long enough to be entertaining...this one is like the last Star Wars movie...pointless, predictable, and too long.
Posted by EJ[/QUOTE]

Sorry EJ, War is not about your entertainment, entertainment at all, nor your attention span.

But given your admitted ambivalence to the Reality, your admission that you don't care, your admitted lack of attention, perhaps you might consider removing yourself from the discussion and process of selecting the leaders of our Nation.

This is not a video game.  Every day Our Troops Get up, put on 30lbs of body armor, 30lbs of ammunition, and a hot, uncomfortable helmet in 130 degree heat so they can search out and destroy the enemies that desire to kill Americans and Unarmed Iraqis shopping in their market.  They don't really think too much about your desire for immediate gratification and would be appalled that you were looking for entertainment in their risks.  They do think about the fact that they will miss another year of birthdays, anniversaries and Christmas, but they have volunteered to do so because they understand it is that important to our Nation, as well as to the Iraqi Civilians under attack from the common enemies of both of our democracies.

Nope, I don't think I know of a single Troop that would give two hoots about your desire to be instantly gratified while they work to keep you safe.  I don't think you would find an ounce of sympathy that you won't even read the news when it is put in front of your face.