Heroes and Cowards

Just Curious

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
585
City & State/Province
Ronan, Montana
Heroes And Cowards

By ALICIA COLON
February 20, 2007
The New York Sun

Corporal Thomas Saba was buried in the Moravian Cemetery on Staten Island last Friday. One of seven Marines killed when their helicopter was shot down in Iraq on February 7, Saba, 30, enlisted in the spring of 2002 in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. He extended his five-year tour by five months so that he could go with his squadron to Iraq.

It is absolutely amazing how America can continue to produce heroes such as Saba while electing cowardly politicians who mock their sacrifices.

Rep. John Murtha, who once suggested we redeploy our troops to Japan, and other congressional defeatists must be jubilant over the passage of that ridiculous House resolution rebuking the president's request for more troops. Meanwhile Saba was laid to rest with full military honors near the grave of another American hero, Army Sergeant Yevgenly Ryndychin, 24, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Ramadi, Iraq, on December 6.

The last Marine funeral I attended was for Adam Ogbu, a 19-year-old Nigerian-American who was my son's best friend. Young Ogbu died while on a Special Forces training run in Texas. He was in perfect health, and the cause of his death was never fully investigated. This was in 2000, and I mention this because the mainstream press is constantly bombarding us with the number of military casualties, and it is clear that the reports are meant to incite anger about the Iraqi war. How refreshing it would be if partisan politics could be set aside and reporters put news in the proper perspective without bias.

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

A neighbor of mine, Harry Colon, was 19 when he was killed in Vietnam. He had been drafted, and many of those protesting against that war have admitted that it was fear of conscription that was behind much of their anti-war activity. It is so pathetic now (while we have this valiant volunteer military) to watch these hoary relics of the 1960s trying to recapture the relevance of that period. Only a few veteran protesters of that era have the integrity to distinguish between these two conflicts.

The noted Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff wrote in an April 3, 2003, column headlined "Why I Am Not Marching": "I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War. … But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq." He had learned of Saddam's atrocities again the Iraqi people and said, "If people want to talk about containing [ Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?" That's a question these protesters fail to address.

Perhaps the most touching reappraisal of an anti-war position was penned by Pat Conroy, author of "The Great Santini," who wrote, "An Honest Confession of an American Coward." He admitted being a draft dodger and an antiwar demonstrator to an old college teammate, Al Kroboth, whom he was interviewing for a book he was writing. Mr. Kroboth had been a POW and Mr. Conroy learned the details of his experience. Mr. Kroboth endured unspeakable pain while being tortured by his captors, yet he was saved by the extraordinary camaraderie among his fellow prisoners. As Mr. Conroy was demonstrating against Nixon and the Christmas bombings in Hanoi, the POWs were holding hands and singing "God Bless America" under the full fury of the bombs. It was those bombs that ultimately led to the release of the POWs.

After that night in Mr. Kroboth's New Jersey home, Pat Conroy researched the history of world totalitarianism during what he calls "the unspeakable century we just left behind." He concluded about our country: "I knew then in my bones but lacked the courage to act on: America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong."

The "bring 'em home" Democrat majority and the 17 Republican turncoats who voted for that resolution apparently disagree.
 
I know the article wasnt completely about this, but it did touch on the congressional vote.

Personally I dont see how voting against a plan they consider bad is dissrespectful to the military, says anythign against the military or the U.S. Thats what makes makes us great and what congress is for. Saying they shouldnt vote/discuss the issue, or whatever because it strengthens the enemy, or anything else along that lines is bovine fecal matter.

What embarrasses me is Bush actually saying he doesnt care what congress thinks and he is going to do it anyway; thats what embarrasses me. If our president really doesnt care what congress thinks then we could really have some problems.
 
3MR":2ip2t9fz said:
What embarrasses me is Bush actually saying he doesnt care what congress thinks and he is going to do it anyway; thats what embarrasses me. If our president really doesnt care what congress thinks then we could really have some problems.

Oh, heck yeah!!!!!!

Alice
 
I think it should be an "experience counts" kinda vote. I think it should be a decision made by those of us who have been there or are there. Instead of all of you speaking FOR us and saying you feel the war is not right just because you want to protect us, shut up and let the ones laying down covering fire decide!

I'm so sick of this crap. It makes me lose my faith in humanity and struggle to justify me sticking MY neck out for some people. All the time I spent away from my family just to protect some loud mouth liberal who calls me immoral...unbelievable!
 
No one is calling you or any of the troops immoral. I lived thru that with Viet Nam...my daughter's father was in Viet Nam. Viet Nam, and the aftermath in this country, was sorrowful. My daughter's father has just now begun to talk about what he experienced there...and it grieves him for what he fears that the soldiers in Iraq are going thru, and what they will go thru when they come home...the nightmares, the illnesses, the questioning of themselves and the people that made decisions for them.

What 3MR has written, and what I have "Oh heck Yeahed" about is not the war in Iraq per se. The concern is about the President of the United States going against the will of the United States people.

The congress is voted for by the people...to represent the will of the people...so right, wrong, or indifferent, right now the majority of the voting citizens of the United States are not happy with the way the country is being run, ergo they voted out the congressman that did not represent what their districts wanted.

The President is supposed to represent the will of the people...he is not doing that. And again, right, wrong, or indifferent, the United States, as a democracy and thru their votes, has said "enough." The President, on the other hand, has told the people he represents that he doesn't care what they say.

The United States President is claiming to try to establish a democracy in Iraq...a government led by the will of the people...yet he is demonstrating that it doesn't matter what the will of the people is.

Horticattleman, I respect you and what you stand for more than you can know...I promise you that. But, I do not respect our democracy's President when he tells us I don't care what you want, folks...it's gonna be MY way.

I'm sorry that you are upset...you have every right to be upset...because you have deep feelings about what you see is right...and according to the majority of the voters, so do they.

I do so wish it could be otherwise...for all of us.

Alice
 
Soldiers should not be making policy for the country. Politicians should be. Soldiers should be voting for the politicians they feel will make the policies they agree with. It has absolutely nothing to do who is laying down covering fire or whos life is actually on the line. If that was the case; Bush, nor any of the other politicians in Congress or the administration would be able to make the decisions. This is specifically why we have civilians in charge of our Armed Forces.

But just because it matters to you -

I have two tours in Iraq so far. The longest being 15 months at a whack. Im still on active duty in the U.S. Army. I go over 20 in March. In my unit I have two soldiers who just returned from Iraq, two still there and one on the way over there as a replacement. My brother just got back from Kosovo. I am still defending your right and everyone elses to have their own opinion, I am positively not going to give up my own right to one.

I believe I meet your qualifications.

PS: Im not a liberal by a long shot either!
 
Alice":29bxu9my said:
The President is supposed to represent the will of the people...he is not doing that. And again, right, wrong, or indifferent, the United States, as a democracy and thru their votes, has said "enough." The President, on the other hand, has told the people he represents that he doesn't care what they sa
Alice
This country is a democracy in that our governing officials are elected by a majority of the qualified voters, or by the electorial college delegates selected by the voters.

Our country's form of government is not a democracy. It is a republic.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

The president is The Head of State, the Head of the Executive Branch of Government, and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

An execcutive acts as he sees fit for the best interest of the body. He is not obligated to change directions as poll numbers change. He is not obligated to follow the whims of the people which can change from day to day. Although many elected officials do-caring more about the next election than good governance. This is the difference between a politician and a statesman.

Bush has repeatedly said that he is concerned with what the future holds as far as the safety and security of this country. He believes we are better off to carry the fight to our enemies now than to retreat and to have to fight them on much worse terms later.
It would be very easy for him to abandon his best judgement, pull the troops out, and enjoy more popularity. It seems to me that he has exhibited more integrity and foresight than that.
 
Alice":2iryqk5s said:
3MR":2iryqk5s said:
What embarrasses me is Bush actually saying he doesnt care what congress thinks and he is going to do it anyway; thats what embarrasses me. If our president really doesnt care what congress thinks then we could really have some problems.

Oh, heck yeah!!!!!!

Alice

Thats why they wrote a little document called the Constitution and the president is elected by the people Commander and Chief.
If it was left up to the liberal cowards we would have been invaded a long time ago. The liberals holler the most about there precieved wrong doings but are willing to pay the least.
Just a different line at the welfare office.

ole0MA15454738-0002.jpg
[/img]
 
Caustic Burno":2ybst3q4 said:
Alice":2ybst3q4 said:
3MR":2ybst3q4 said:
What embarrasses me is Bush actually saying he doesnt care what congress thinks and he is going to do it anyway; thats what embarrasses me. If our president really doesnt care what congress thinks then we could really have some problems.

Oh, heck yeah!!!!!!

Alice

Thats why they wrote a little document called the Constitution and the president is elected by the people Commander and Chief.
If it was left up to the liberal cowards we would have been invaded a long time ago. The liberals holler the most about there precieved wrong doings but are willing to pay the least.
Just a different line at the welfare office.

ole0MA15454738-0002.jpg
[/img]

Huh CB? Im totally missing your point.

But to clarify my previous post just in case there is any missunderstanding. I dont have a problem with the president not doing what congress wants. Thats why we have seperation of powers. I have a huge problem with the president saying he doesnt care what congress thinks. If the three powers cant all play nicely in the same sandbox, nothing productive is ever going to be accomplished. What strenghtens the enemy is all this partisan bickering and snide comments being made, not discussion of the issues. The enemy is being strenghtened and moralized by out bickering, not our respective actions toward a particular end.
 
Congress should have been involved in the policy to go over there, not the policy of how to fight there. I sure wouldn't 300 or so politicians deciding how many bullets I get because I'm training Iraqi's rather than fighting against an enemy.

I have always been totally against this mess, but once it was decided to have a war, the rules change. We have one Commander and Chief, and he needs to make realtime decisions without a filibuster or other delay tactics so someone can get some face time.
 
The president didnt have to respond to Congress and he definitely didnt have to say anything as childlike as "I dont care what you thinhk, Im doing it anyway!" It takes two to Tango and argue, the difference being the enemy doesnt care if we Tango, but they sure love to see us argue.

Dont think I dont see how both sides play right into their hands either. Getting in a school yard bickering match over these issues doesnt help either side of the debate and only make sus look stupid as a country.
 
Looks to me like the liberal cowards are being joined by more and more conservatives. Otherwise, congress would not have lost so many conservative seats in the past elections. I'm not talking about polls. I'm talking about elections and votes...that completely changed the majority party in congress. And now, we have conservative congresspeople speaking against Bush administration policy. So apparently the majority of the United States voters are wrong, misguided foolish cowards.

CB, you seem to be operating under the notion of "I'm not out of step with the country, the country is out of step with me."

Alice
 
I hear what your saying 3MR and I agree with you quite a bit. The thing I'm most worried about are ROE changed because we've become trainers rather than fighters.

I remembered political ROE's that included "If you see the enemy, do not lock and load weapon unless it becomes apparent he's threatening you".

Back home, the politician is saying something like "Our soldiers will not fight unless they feel there is an immediate threat"

Bull****!! If so much as a field mouse moved, you could hear a whole squads ammo entering the chamber!!

The one thing we can't do hear is politicize it so much it puts our Soldiers and Marines in a bad way.

I agree with you about the bickering too. Funny, we never hear about their side in-fighting
 
The Bachelor":1jj4t8ek said:
I hear what your saying 3MR and I agree with you quite a bit. The thing I'm most worried about are ROE changed because we've become trainers rather than fighters.

I remembered political ROE's that included "If you see the enemy, do not lock and load weapon unless it becomes apparent he's threatening you".

Back home, the politician is saying something like "Our soldiers will not fight unless they feel there is an immediate threat"

Bull****!! If so much as a field mouse moved, you could hear a whole squads ammo entering the chamber!!

The one thing we can't do hear is politicize it so much it puts our Soldiers and Marines in a bad way.

I agree with you about the bickering too. Funny, we never hear about their side in-fighting

They may not be in-fighting, but they sure are fighting each other.
 
KenB":2rp8rkqn said:
The Bachelor":2rp8rkqn said:
I hear what your saying 3MR and I agree with you quite a bit. The thing I'm most worried about are ROE changed because we've become trainers rather than fighters.

I remembered political ROE's that included "If you see the enemy, do not lock and load weapon unless it becomes apparent he's threatening you".

Back home, the politician is saying something like "Our soldiers will not fight unless they feel there is an immediate threat"

Bull****!! If so much as a field mouse moved, you could hear a whole squads ammo entering the chamber!!

The one thing we can't do hear is politicize it so much it puts our Soldiers and Marines in a bad way.

I agree with you about the bickering too. Funny, we never hear about their side in-fighting

They may not be in-fighting, but they sure are fighting each other.

And have been since the beginning of time...and will continue to...

Alice
 
The Bachelor":2g3lf65r said:
Congress should have been involved in the policy to go over there, not the policy of how to fight there. I sure wouldn't 300 or so politicians deciding how many bullets I get because I'm training Iraqi's rather than fighting against an enemy.

I have always been totally against this mess, but once it was decided to have a war, the rules change. We have one Commander and Chief, and he needs to make realtime decisions without a filibuster or other delay tactics so someone can get some face time.

Congress did vote to go in there now a bunch of the mudbugs are having memory problems. Cut and run tatics or sueing for peace doesn't work, Europe tried that with the Germans after WWI just to fight a stronger Germany thirty years later, Russains tried it with the Japs, just to fight them again twenty years later.
You win by anilating the enemy to unconditional surrender.
You can carve this in stone, write it in blood or place your hand on the Good Book, we cut and run and we will be fighting them here. better to fight in there back yard than ours.
We are fighting a zealot that is not going away it is there duty to kill us no matter where we are.
We are fighting them with the Army there better than them blowing up schools and shopping malls here.
 
I think that the folks that have taken over the congress have missed th point of why they won. It was not the war, but dishonest shenegains of Jack Abramhoff, Tom Delay and the such. They should look at the ones they beat, the very ones on the take.
 
I think that the folks that have taken over the congress have missed th point of why they won. It was not the war, but dishonest shenegains of Jack Abramhoff, Tom Delay and the such. They should look at the ones they beat, the very ones on the take.
 
KenB":iirjz2pq said:
They may not be in-fighting, but they sure are fighting each other.

Brought a smile to my face Ken, because your absolutely right. Can't dig myself out of this one, but I'll try anyway. When I was thinking about this I was thinking about Al Queda, not the Shites, Sunnis, or Kurds.

Ahhh this is why I raise livestock and don't run for office :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top