BLOG OF THE WEEK - OLD SOLDIER
The Blog of the Week spotlight falls on , "Old Soldier." Great conservative commentary from a 31 year vet whose service to our nation began in 1967. First a heart felt thank you from this site for his service ! The blogger provides a good deal of research as he posts interesting commentary from many sources along with his own. Well worth your reading and adding as a link.
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 9:44 AM
30 Comments:
Ken, I humbly thank you for the highlight as well as visiting 'Old Soldier.' I like what I see here at 'The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth' and have added it to my 'Allies' list.
Thanks for being another conservative voice in the wilderness.
Test.
Old Soldier is defenetly not a conservative website. It is an extreme rightwing website.
I'd also venture to say, that if the Bushies decided to air that clip as an example of how bad the terrorists are, you rightwingers would be chearing.
Mudkitty: What an idiot! Since when did ignorance become a point of view?
Ken: At Mike's America we've been fans of Old Soldier for quite a while and glad to see him doing his own blog. Here's a bit of his bio that you may not have read:
Old Soldier joined the U.S. Army in 1967. As an Army Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot, he served in Vietnam, Korea, Italy, a covert intelligence mission in Central America, the First Gulf War, and several stateside assignments. He retired after 31 years active service, achieving: the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five, and the status of Master Army Aviator. Awards include: the Legion of Merit, 3 Bronze Stars, 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 11 Air Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals and many more decorations.
Idiots like Mudkitty aren't worthy to breathe the same air.
I commend Old Soldier for his service and believe that he can stick up for himself.
But you'd think Old Soldier would object to our boys and girls being used as sitting ducks. What honor is there in putting them in that situation?
As for breathing the same air...this IS America, right? People with different points of view surely have the right to breathe the same air? Otherwise, what did Old Soldier fight for?
Your insults and namecalling only show that you have a bad argument.
I might add, that the Bush Administration, and the Government are not one and the same. Our Government is great. The Administration is not.
Yeah, they are making sure that their stupid idea that government is bad comes to pass - the old self fullfilling prophesy.
Yeah, Government IS bad, when Republicans are in charge.
Well, Ken, I'm glad I stopped back by; otherwise I never would have realized that I am an “extreme rightwing” blogger. I guess expressing an opinion that is not acceptable to those left of center qualifies me for the extreme right.
”But you'd think Old Soldier would object to our boys and girls being used as sitting ducks. What honor is there in putting them in that situation?”
Mudkitty, I have my opinion, but for you to form yours why don’t you try communicating with some of the “sitting ducks” to find out how they view their mission? Be prepared for opinions that differ from your own – I guess they will be categorized as “extreme right-wingers,” too.
Old Soldier, your implication that all soldiers are pro-Bush and pro-Iraq war is just ludicrous. Read Kevin Tillman's thoughts (he is the brother of Pat Tillman):
http://www.truthdig.com/
It is clear what he thinks about the Iraq mission.
Personally, I don't understand why we have American troops in the middle of a civil war and where we ask our soldiers to re-build schools and roads and to pass out backpacks and candy.
If you believe that we should be the world's policeman, then that is up to you and I respect your opinion. But I also respectfully disagree.
Rob, is Kevin Tillman a "sitting duck?" If not, you have not satisfied my suggestion.
Pat Tillman and Casey Sheehan both volunteered to join and serve in the military. They both died serving. Because their brother and mother is bitter does not change the aspect of Pat's and Casey's voluntary service and belief in their mission.
Do not throw bitter family members at me in an attempt to justify the war as being wrong. I suggested contact with actual serving military (mudkitty's "sitting ducks") for their take. My mother did not like the fact that I voluntarily joined the Army in 1967 and was consequently sent to Vietnam. She probably would have been extremely bitter had I been killed there, but it would not have changed the fact that I believed in that for which I volunteered.
You should actually read the piece and consider the context of who is writing. Kevin Tillman signed up and served with his brother in the Army Rangers.
Yes, Old Soldier, have you actually read the Tillman piece? I doubt it.
People who lose loved ones over lies have a right to be bitter, and that would include your mother.
Old Soldier, I never said your expressing your oppinion was "unacceptable." Never, never, never, never, never! Do not, do not, I repeat, put words in my mouth. I said your oppinions were rightwing and extreme, and they are. But you are so far to the right you don't even recognize it.
As for my communicating with the "sitting ducks..." I have and I do. May I suggest you yourself start with reading many of the letters sent to Army Times. I have friends and family who serve, and so your implication is false.
Kevin Tillman was there the day his brother was killed...in the "fog" of war.
I think people are getting pretty tired of the fog of war, no matter how romantic it can seem to some who love war.
Rob and Mudkitty, I erred regarding Kevin Tillman and admit that I had not read Kevin’s article until this morning. For what it is worth, my thoughts were of a local story similar to the Tillman tragedy. Kevin is certainly entitled to his disdain and is certainly welcomed to speak his mind. Some of his statements are supposition, not fact known by experience. That aside, anyone who has lost a loved one or friend to the war is entitled to be angry, upset and question policies.
The battlefield and war effects people individually; some scar deeply while others are more capable of coping. Kevin’s experiences have obviously shaped a slightly different perspective from Sept 12, 2001 when he said, "At times like this, you stop and think about not only how good we have it but what kind of system we live under," he said. "My great-grandfather was at Pearl Harbor. And a lot of my family has gone and fought in wars. And I really haven't done a ... thing as far as laying myself on the line like that."
Look, I do not advocate war as the first course of action – no soldier who has experienced combat and war does. However, when it is required for the safety and security of the citizens of this nation I believe we should unite, fight to victory, and then sort out the differences. While our young service people are in harms way is not the time to be second guessing and squabbling amongst ourselves. That is the opinion of someone who has fought in an unpopular war (Vietnam) and a popular war (the first Gulf War) – and the differences are astounding.
Mudkitty, do you have a reference for Kevin being “there the day his brother was killed?” I cannot confirm your statement.
Old Soldier...if you google it (info on Kevin Tillman) it will come. Also, and I don't think you meant to do this, but you were quoting Pat Tillman, not Kevin Tillman, in the paragraph with italics. The way you wrote the paragraph makes it sound like you were atributing Pat's quote to Kevin.
Thank you for at least conceeding that people who lose loved ones have a right to be bitter and upset. Gee whiz. Ya think?
When our boys and girls are losing their lives OVER LIES, you don't need to be an old soldier to know that that is exactly the time to start questioning and second and third quessing...it's called contigency planning in military parlance, and it's military 101 - something the Bush Administration seems to know nothing about.
Old Soldier, when will you next conceed we were lied into this Occupation?
Also Old Soldier - it doesn't appear you've ever fought door to door urban combat like our boys and girls are doing now...but hasn't it always been a military ideal to avoid that type of fighting, because it is considered the worst type of fighting by the military? This is something you would know and would be able to tell me.
And finally, don't you think there are smarter and more surgical ways to deal with terrorism, and using the military to deal with terrrorist is proving to be unwealdy? Again, I recommend the Army Times, you can get it on-line.
We need to honor new soldiers and not just old soldiers, and this Occupation of Baghdad is ignoble.
Actually, the as for dealing with terrorism, which is about fear - we've got to stop fearing fear. Which is to paraphrase FDR.
If you add up all the people killed in real wars in the past century, you're are talking about upwards of 50 MILLION PEOPLE. If you add up all the people killed by terrorism, not war, but terrorism, in the last century, you're talking less than 50 thousand. So using the military to combat terrorism is like taking a baseball bat to a hornets nest. Kind of stupid when you really think about it.
When you talk about the "war on terror" you do realize that terror is an emotion, right? When you talk about the "War On Terror" you do realize it's just a metaphor, like the War On Poverty, or the War On Drugs? Right people?
”Old Soldier, when will you next conceed we were lied into this Occupation?”
When you concede the Democrats preceding Bush becoming President also lied. The very same intelligence and UN resolutions were used by Bush that was used by Clinton. Too, when you concede that the majority of the Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq (before they opposed it, that is).
”Also Old Soldier - it doesn't appear you've ever fought door to door urban combat like our boys and girls are doing now...”
What’s your point - other than to mitigate my opinion?
”…but hasn't it always been a military ideal to avoid that type of fighting, because it is considered the worst type of fighting by the military?”
No. On a fast moving assault, maneuver units will envelop pockets of resistance and continue the momentum. They will return to resolve the pockets later. Fighting door-to-door is no worse than clearing pill boxes in Europe, caves and tunnels in the Pacific or spider hole and tunnel complexes in Vietnam. It is extremely dangerous at best, but if the situation requires it, then it will be done. How else, pray tell, would you ferret out an enemy that hides among the civilian population?
”And finally, don't you think there are smarter and more surgical ways to deal with terrorism, and using the military to deal with terrrorist is proving to be unwealdy?”
It doesn’t matter what I think, it is up to the generals and their strategists and tacticians to employ the most effective means to combat the given enemy. But, remember, the liberal ideal of ‘proportional response’ and ‘constrained collateral damage’ severely inhibits the ability of our commanders to prosecute offensive operations. It forces the lethal door-to-door operations.
”Actually, the as for dealing with terrorism, which is about fear - we've got to stop fearing fear.”
Are you denying that we were attacked on 911 by people who have declared themselves to be enemies of the United States and our citizens? Do you deny that radical Jihadist Muslims desire to destroy everything this nation stands for in the interest of propagating Islam and Sharia? The only clear way I see to victory over radical Jihadist Muslims is to deny them the necessary resources with which to wage war (and attacks). That entails denying them money, training sites, support from sympathetic nations and finally recruitment pools. The military is more adept at that than police forces. To look into the evil face of a self declared enemy and reject his threat is worse than ignoble, it is ignorant.
Terror is also a tactic, not just an emotional response to a stimuli. “The War On Terror” is a PC label, plain and simple. We are at war with radical Jihadist Muslims.
Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. Two different things Old Sold. Please be more precise in your terminolgy. Lives are at stake. You ought to know that.
So if I conceed the dems lied, you'll conceed the GOP lied, Old Sold? What is this? Grade school?
As for the urban warfare thing, I must ponder what you say, for when it comes to actual combat, I take you very seriously. It's policy that I think you suck at.
I never denied we were attacked on 9/11. Again, I have to ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. I just think the Bush Administration reaction to it is exploitive, dangerous, and disasterous for National Security.
As for jihadists. Where were you in the 80's and 90's (or now for that matter) when I joined RAWA (Radical Afganistans Women Association) to fight for women's rights and against things like Female Genital Mutilation. I say you're too little too late.
”Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. Two different things Old Sold. Please be more precise in your terminolgy.”
According to Webster: “ter-ror 1. intense fear 2.a. a person or thing causing intense fear 2.b. the quality of causing such fear; terribleness 3. a program of terrorism or a party, group, etc. resorting to terrorism.” So, 2.b. and 3. can be construed as tactics. Is that precise enough?
”So if I conceed the dems lied, you'll conceed the GOP lied, Old Sold? What is this? Grade school?”
Perhaps for you; I am merely trying to establish a perspective indicating that as each party was in power, each adamantly proclaimed Iraq to be a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the USA. BOTH parties – clearly not just the GOP or just the Democrats.
”It's policy that I think you suck at.”
The feeling is mutual, so that is fine.
”Again, I have to ask you to stop putting words in my mouth.”
Since when is asking questions putting words in your mouth? Sorry, another question, I know...
”I just think the Bush Administration reaction to it is exploitive, dangerous, and disasterous for National Security.”
And I think a denial head-in-the-sand approach to radical Jihadist Muslims is even more dangerous. Without a unified determined response, they are emboldened. Look at OBL’s analogy of our response in Somalia.
”As for jihadists. Where were you in the 80's and 90's (or now for that matter) when I joined RAWA (Radical Afganistans Women Association) to fight for women's rights and against things like Female Genital Mutilation. I say you're too little too late.”
You’re straw manning and obfuscating again. I could ask you, “Where were you in 1969 when I was in the jungles of Vietnam or in 1991 when I was in the deserts of Iraq?” The questions are meaningless to this discussion – just like yours. Care to stay on track? Yeah, I know, a question - I’m putting words in your mouth again, aren’t I?
Are you putting words in my mouth by suggesting that I oppose your asking questions? That, again is false. I support and encourage your asking questions. There is a difference between asking questions and mischaracterizing a person's position.
But to answer you questions honestly and directly, when you were in Nam, I was in High School - nothing wrong with that. When you were in the so-called "popular" gulf war (a wag the dog scenerio if there ever was one) I was fighting for the liberation of Afganistani and North African women. Nothing wrong with that. So what are you implying?
The head in the sand approach is what you Bushies are doing when you deny that we were lied into this war, and when you insist that there's no civil war there now. "There no civil war! Really! Really! Really!"
Mudkitty, I have honestly tried to engage you in a dialogue that makes sense, but you are all over the some unseen spectrum all at once. You cannot get off your core talking point of "Bush lied." You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the very same rhetoric came out of the mouths of Democrats during the Clinton years and in the months leading up to Mar 03. You have this dillusional apparition that the active duty military are becoming disatisfied in droves and are migrating to an anti-war position. If that were the case, why is the Army's reinlistment percents highest among the units involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? All those units meet their reinlistment goals and more.
There are reasons I will no longer post your comments at Old Soldier and it has become abundantly clear that I made the right decision. I will no longer respond to you any where we should commonly comment. I', sorry, but I am just not going waste my time chasing your wild comments all over the place.
"Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. Two different things Old Sold. Please be more precise in your terminolgy. Lives are at stake. You ought to know that."
She attacks your terminology while she herself cannot even spell.
This "extreme Rightwing Blogger" will no longer publish her either. The things she has said here, and the blatant disrespect she demonstrates clearly proves that she is nothing other than a troll.
I meant to thank you, Mike, for honoring Old Soldier as Blog of the Week. You can see how trolls distract from the post; that's their entire purpose.
Thanks again!
Old Soldier is cutting and running.
But I won't cut and run from the core point, that the Bushies lied us into war? It's the truth, and it's VERY SERIOUS. Old Soldier can't seem to forgive John Kerry for some imagined personal insult - which he calls treason (since when an insult is treasonous, I'll never know) yet he doesn't seem to give a damn that our boys and girls were lied to over the real reasons the U.S. is conducting what has turned out to be, a private war of profit, and the quaqmire the the liberals said it would be.
(And I say that with absolutly no atisfaction whats so ever, just disgust.)
As for the re-inslistments - naturally, a re-inlistment automanticly means Afganistan or Iraq - nobody's reinlisting for SK and the 39th paralel, so there's nothing to compare it to except inlistment. And inlistment sucks. As for the reinlisters...if you read the letters on Army Times, you will see that they could care less about Iraq's liberation, they just don't want to cut and run from their buddies (like Old Soldier is cutting and running from this reasoned discussion.)
Let me tell you all something. Building a school, or the fact that someone opened a melon cart, or a video store, is NOT NEWS. It should be normal; the normal course of busines. And it's not the normal course of business because Bush took a baseball bat to a hornets nest. A very unintellegent way of going about things, but par for the course for the Bushies. And there's no cutting and running from the truth.
One more point Old Soldier, you didn't try to have an honest discussion, you want a discussion only on your terms, here and over at your site. And that is an unAmerican characteristic.
Gayle, I give it to you on this, you are a better speller than I am. Congratulations.
BTW - I've never been to your blog, or site, Gayle (that I know of) so that statement was a little disengenuous. I didn't even know you had a blog or site. (Go ahead, worry about the spelling, not the meaning...)
*****
Now is this site Mike's site? Because I thought he was just a poster. I thougt this was John and Ken's site.
Gayle, are you a blogger? Or a poster? Or do you realize the difference? Bush doesn't know the difference, I'll tell you that, so you could be in, er, well, similar company. Which I am sure your proud of. Because to you, people who know things, and research things, are "arrogent."
*****
When Bush spoke of googleing, he said he looked at an overhead map of his "ranch" (yeah, ranch - where the only animals are 2 small pedigeed dogs.) Talk about giving info away to the enemy...why doesn't he just draw a target on his back? This Bush guy is isn't stupid, people, just dumb. Do you think the terrorists weren't listening?
The Republicans can not be trusted with National Security.
Also, in the same interview, I think he was VERY disrespectful of his father.
Ya'll can see the interview clips yourselves over at YouTube.
And there are also clips there of Bush saying "stay the course" on 64 separate occasions, along with Cheney saying "stay the course," Bartlett saying "stay the course," and even Tony Snow saying "Stay The Course."
It's a dilly!
But you ought to be aware of things. Cuz after all, you're all Old Soldiers in a sense.
OS - You refer to my statements as "wild" and "all over the place." Perhaps they appear wild to you, because you're an old soldier, and can no longer keep up? But please...don't fade away. I think you are quite The Character. Almost Dickensian in perportions.
*****
It's always hard to admit you've been duped. Especially when you've dedicated you're whole life to the idea that war is glorious.
I understand. When you've all your eggs in one basket, as they say. Although putting all your eggs in one basket could hardly be called conservative. I call it dangerous.
That's why so many hucksters don't get sued or prosicuted...people are embarrassed by their own gullibilaty.
Guys --
Old Soldier was an excellent choice for Blog of the Week. I've been frequenting his site regularly and believe him to be an astute commenter on today's issues.
Mudkitty --
They are wild and all over the place. Live with it.
Ah Seth, you can't keep up either. Live with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home