Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

A hero's welcome

By Aussiegirl

To understand how most patriotic Americans feel about their heros, read this inspiring post, Gateway Pundit: Missouri Welcomes Home a War Hero, and then remember one emotionally overwrought mother in Texas, fawned over by the media and manipulated by the left.

13 Comments:

At 12:02 AM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

Aussiegirl, you couldn't be more on point if you tried.

You are exactly right about the differences in how our soldiers are treasured by those who appreciate the freedom they have bought and paid for with their blood, sweat and tears. While we all care deeply for Cindy Sheehan's son, and his loss of life, his own mother is using his grave as her ticket into what she perceives as California's entertainment society.

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

An act of aggression is hardly "fighting for freedom."
I think you are making a major philosophical and psychological mistake in trying to fathom Cindy Sheehan's or anyone else's emotional state or her motivations for what she does.
Try, instead, to put yourself in her shoes: Your child has been killed in a war, the given reasons for which are different every time some bureaucrat or politician makes a statement as to why troops are in Iraq, as to why the invasion was launched in the first place, as to why American sons and daughters are there dying.
True, the slimeballs in the "news" media are making her a cause celebre and ignoring every other cause and every other soldier.
In this case, however, it does not make her wrong.

 
At 5:36 PM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

Michael, I sincerely feel sorry for Cindy, and for what lays ahead of her. I'm not exactly sure what events between her son's death, and her appearance in Crawford, Texas, caused her to go over the edge, but she definitely has.

I feel that there are people out there, Michael Moore, Joan Baez, Al Sharpton, etc., etc., who are using her as the face of their extreme views and hate, and when Cindy is no longer useful to them, they will drop her like a hot rock!

They have encouraged her to turn against her own family, while she is useful to them, where will they be when she quite literally cracks up.

 
At 7:04 PM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

Bonnie, you forgot to mention Hanoi Jane Fonda.
And you are probably mostly right in most of your denunciations.
Still, it doesn't mean Cindy Sheehan is wrong.
WHY did the U.S. government, the Bush administration invade Iraq?
WHY won't Bush talk to the bereaved mother?
Lord knows I hate being, however temporarily, allied with the leftist slime you name, but, in part, this time, they are right: The invasion of Iraq was wrong, immoral, unchristian, illogical, and probably unconstitutional.

 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

By the way, don't forget: The "neo-cons" who are the primary architects of the imperialist aggressions -- internal and external -- of the Bush administration are all "former" liberals.

 
At 8:35 PM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

Michael, I see your point, and I did not specifically say whether or not I felt she was wrong, because right or wrong, she is entitled to an opinion as am I.

Of course, I do see the war in Iraq in a different light than you and she.

We ended up leaving Vietnam with our tails tucked between our legs, because of Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, John Kerry, and others too numerous to name. And we are still paying for that cowardly withdrawal today.

Vietnam coupled with the Clinton years of allowing the bombings of two embassies, the USS Cole, the '93 Twin Towers, etc., made us appear to be an easy target to the terrorists who grew more and more bold. We were a paper tiger to those that planned 9/11.

Only history will tell whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, but to abruptly leave now is not the answer.

For whatever reason, the main stream media wants us to cut and run, and we are only getting the real news from the soldiers themselves, and they believe in what they are doing in Iraq. Did you hear today, that the reenlistment figures are through the roof? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Casey Sheehan was killed during his second tour in Iraq.

This is a volunteer Army, and someone needs to remind Cindy, Jane and Joan of that fact.

 
At 11:45 PM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

There are HUGE differences between attacking Iraq, an act of aggression, and the defense of South Vietnam, which had been attacked by North Vietnam.
(Bonnie, I'm sure you will agree that, generally, throughout history, the South something has usually been the victim of the aggressor North something.)
That the nearly 2,000 Americans who have been killed were -- mostly, but by no means entirely -- "volunteers" in no way justifies the act of aggression and in no way justifies their deaths.
Some of those "volunteers" were scheduled to end their military employment but were forced to remain, because not enough new cannon fodder was volunteering for this war of aggression.
Do you realize you are saying, even though NOT intending to, that it is OK those people were killed because they had volunteered to go into harm's way?
By the way, for what seems to be real on-the-spot reporting, see http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/08/gates-of-fire.html

 
At 10:46 AM, Blogger TJ Willms said...

Aussiegirl thank you for the post.

It does give one hope that regardless of your political stance on WHY we are sending soldiers into harms way, at least some people in this country know how to do the right thing. The Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines fighting at the behest of our government are doing so with honor and dedication and deserve those sentiments reflected when they return home. They did not choose where they were being sent but followed their orders and some have paid a heavy price for volunteering to serve their country in the ARMED FORCES.

Marine Lance Corporal Timothy Maguire understood this and apparently the people of his hometown do as well. This “welcome home”is an example of “Patriotism” in its proper perspective. Honor those who have served BECAUSE they are willing to serve so that you and your loved ones are not forced to.

 
At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Joseph Knight said...

As a Viernam Veteran (& a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War), I choose to honor the warriors but not the war(s). The fact that they died for a lie, as did my brothers, make them no less heros. There will be a civil war in Iraq if we leave now - or next year - or in 10 years. But there is no reason for more Americans to die for the lie, or in Iraq's civil war.

 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

Michael, I think you missed my point about the comparison to Vietnam. Regardless of why we went to Vietnam or Iraq, we have already seen what happens, when we do not finish a war, when we just up and leave.

As for implying that I think a volunteer's life is any less valuable than that of a draftee's, or a draft dodger's for that mater, I cannot believe that you would say that to me.

As for the few men and women who signed up during peacetime for the "benefits," and then complained that they were being called up, they knew what they were doing when they signed on the dotted line, there was no one holding a gun to their head at that moment in time.

And, as for it being pointless for an American to die in an Iraq War, I'm sure glad that there were French and Spanish soldiers willing to die for us in our Revolutionary War.

 
At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aussiegirl said:

I thank everyone for such thoughtful and sensitive comments. It's obvious this war touches all of us deeply. I think the one thing everyone can share is our concern and appreciation for the difficult and dangerous work that is being done by our men and women in the Armed Forces, regardless of our view of the rightness or wrongness of the war itself. At this point, I think the most critical element is for the administration to finish the job over there as efficiently as possible, and not allow political or PC motivations to overshadow what needs to be done n the ground to complete the mission. Let's have less politics and more generals making decisions there, and not make the mistakes of Vietnam, where the politicians were looking over the shoulders of the military and second-guessing every decision to the ultimate detriment of the men in uniform and ultimately, the larger military and political goal. If I had my way, not one more soldier would die over there, but the grim reality is, the right or wrong, we are there and we can't just abandon the country and leave it to become a completely uncontrolled breeding ground for terrorists. Like it or not, we have to finish the job. And what I want is for them not to be afraid to get in there and knock some heads and finish it up pronto, without weighing our troops down with PC second guessing every time a soldier defends himself.

 
At 12:08 AM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

Bonnie, you said, "As for implying that I think a volunteer's life is any less valuable than that of a draftee's, or a draft dodger's for that mater, I cannot believe that you would say that to me."
Once again, please read WHAT I SAID, which is not, again, what you are inferring I said.
I implied nothing.
I very explicitly said, "Do you realize you are saying, even though NOT intending to, that it is OK those people were killed because they had volunteered to go into harm's way?"
Words should mean something. When I use them, I mean what the words say and what they mean, not what someone else says I mean.
Several times here, others have twisted what I said, however unintendedly they did so. I sure wish they wouldn't.
Also, there is a super site I recommend to everyone here: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com
and again I recommend http://michaelyon.blogspot.com which, by coincidence, the Chris Muir cartoon also does Saturday.

 
At 12:26 AM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

Aussie, you said, "Like it or not, we have to finish the job."
Who is "we"?
It is not you nor I.
Even if, to some degree, the military people there being shot at and exposed to death are there more-or-less voluntarily, the money being spent -- apparently in the scores of billion$$$ -- sure isn't being given voluntarily.
I urge everyone to see the words of Joe Knight, right above Bonnie's right above yours. However long Americans remain in harm's way, Iraq will not be peaceful and free.
In fact, it is the presence of Americans that has exacerbated the "insurgency," that has increased the activities of ... heck, let's call them "terrorists," even if they consider themselves some form of "freedom fighters," though whatever it is they want, it isn't freedom.
The first Bush administration left Saddam Hussein in power because, speakers for the first Bush said, it provided stability for the region, it maintained "the balance of power," which is apparently all the politicians in every country understand or care about.
Whatever spin the politicians try to put on the situation, they do NOT care about freedom.
Many countries in the world suffered and suffer worse than Iraq did, and in our own United States the degree of freedom is lessening daily.
A United States citizen cannot even take employment without governmental permission.
One cannot even open a business without governmental permission.
One cannot even send one's children to school without making those children's personal information available to the military establishment, thanks to the current Bush administration.
Heck, one cannot even HAVE children without those children being branded with a government-issued number.
Whatever the real reason the Bush administration wants to keep Americans in Iraq, facing death and dismemberment, it's not freedom.
Shucks, the Busheviks could bring freedom to this country and not have even one person, volunteer or draftee, killed.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home