There is a very disturbing, yet very accurate piece in the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page this morning about Port Security. The article is titled On the Waterfront — Still after the 1950’s Marlon Brando movie which tells a story about corrupt union activity on the docks.

Now I am on and off various terminals here in the Southeast every day as I have been for over 10 years. My maritime related background goes back nearly 20 years. And the WSJ has hit a nerve. Go ahead and read the article if you want a better understanding of one of the biggest reasons our ports security is still so very lax.

It has been common knowledge that there are some very unsavory folks with felonious records filling out the Longshoremen ranks. Don’t get me wrong, there are a great many Longshore union members who are hard working, above board, contentious, ethical patriots. (Yes some of them actually do work hard.)

Over the years I’ve heard tons of stories about stabbings, shootings perpetrated by the labor force both on the docks and out in town. The most memorable was the story about the longshoremen who supposedly carried a duffel bag on the job that he wouldn’t let anyone look in. Finally it turned out that he’d been carrying around his ex-wife’s head in the bag for days. Don’t know if it was true or not, but at least that story ended with the guy getting escorted off the port by the police. And I could see it happening.

Some operations I’ve seen were notorious for their pilferage, which is a fancy word for stealing. Usually is it is rationalized with the phrase, “Well, everyone is doing it.” No everyone isn’t.

And it is not unusual for a regular worker to disappear for several months, or maybe a few years while he takes a break at the county or state facilities because of drugs, or an assault, or robbery, or shooting (whatever) only to be right back on the docks when he’s served his time.

Now some will argue that a man shouldn’t be double punished by losing his livelihood just because he made a mistake. I am not unsympathetic to their point. However when it comes to security, past behavior is a pretty strong indicator of future risk. And I’m not so sure the WSJ gets the risk exactly right. I don’t think that even a felonious Longshoreman would knowingly agree to turn a blind eye to a cargo of plutonium. However I could see one taking a cash payment to “not ask any questions” about the particular cargo being smuggled in and do it unknowingly as a result.

The WSJ article points to a huge problem with the security of our ports: the power of the unions. The unions are actively lobbying against common sense security measures because they know it would create problems for large portions of their membership keeping their jobs. These felonious members pay their union dues compliantly and therefore their union bosses lobby hard and effectively to protect their jobs.

It is unconscionable that, more than 5 years after 9-11 we still do not have a national transit worker ID card. The government truly has no idea who is really working at our ports. For all we know, someone on the terrorist watch list may be at one of our ports today. And the only reason we don’t have an ID card system in place is because the unions don’t want the government doing background checks on their membership and bringing to light how large a percentage of their membership, the people actually present in the daily handling of our nation’s cargo, are actually convicted felons.

Instead we have a bizarre system where every individual terminal is responsible for creating their own security system. Some terminals have decent security. But more often it is a joke with the protection of our country being assigned to a $7 an hour “security guard” who often times is either too old, or too obese to actually offer any protection more strenuous than writing a name on a list of paper.

As a result of the current non-system, those of us who routinely go to multiple terminals (and I can think of 11 different terminals off the top of my head on the Savannah River alone) are forced to carry a stack of different ID cards for each of the different terminals. And the problem is even worse for the truck drivers who haul the containers around the country. For them, it’s like shuffling through a deck of cards in their truck to find the right ID each time they pull a container up to a different terminal.

Meanwhile the politicians keep passing bills with fancy sounding names to pacify the uninformed public into believing that port security is actually being improved. It sounds like they are actually doing something to help keep our nation safe. But really they are trying to convince us that naked emperor is really wearing beautiful clothes while they handicap the very folks they are bringing into the Department of Homeland Security to protect us by caving to the pressure of the unions.

Unfortunately, absent of any political leadership with the fortitude to stand up to the unions on this issue, it is going to take a 9-11 level event at our ports to shake our government into any action to seriously protect our ports.

And when the big one finally happens they will respond in their typical close-the-barn-door-behind-the-horse fashion by shutting down all port activity for days while they scramble to figure out what to do. If you think there was a recession and it was hard on our economy after 9-11 when passenger airline traffic was halted for a few days I have something to tell you.

You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Update: Michelle Malkin also notes the problem of Felons in Our Ports and how the problem is damaging to Homeland Security.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS Feed.

I had an interesting conversation with a feminist abortion advocate last night.

The thing that impressed me about her pro-abortion post that I landed on was that she expressed her views and opinions without all the rage and emotion that I’ve grown to expect when folks talk about the subject. I wasn’t going to leave a comment because I figured she didn’t really want to hear an opposing view and I wasn’t interested in a debate on the subject. But for some reason I decided to comment anyway and I tried to gently point out one aspect of her position that she might give more consideration.

She came back with a reasoned response that made it clear that she did give my idea genuine thought after she expressed a little surprise that someone of my persuasion didn’t simply just attempt tear her to shreds.

Normally when I have a noteworthy blog encounter I put up a link to the other person’s blog, even when we disagree. However in this case I don’t think she’d much appreciate me sending over a bunch of my pro-life friends. So you’ll have to forgive me for not posting a link to our conversation.

What’s my point?

My point is that even in a supremely emotionally charged issue such as abortion it is possible for folks with radically differing views to have a dialogue without attacking each other personally and the conversation devolving into rage.

Too often we seem to insist on proving that we are right and that those with differing views are wrong. We don’t respect other people enough to simply present information and give them the dignity to come to their own conclusions.

Where did we get that approach from?

I don’t see Jesus attacking people personally like we tend to. Sure there were some groups that he didn’t have very flattering things to say about. But even when they came at him trying to lay word traps for him he never directly attacked the person who attempted the trap. Instead he confronted some of their ideas and beliefs.

That’s a huge difference.

We would do much better if we listened to the words of Proverbs and put them into practice.

• A gentle answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger.
• The wise person makes learning a joy; fools spout only foolishness.
• The LORD is watching everywhere, keeping his eye on both the evil and the good.
• Gentle words bring life and health; a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.

Too often instead, in our need to be right, we end up screaming in someone’s face like the picture above. It’s not working for us. Maybe then we should change our approach.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS Feed.

Powered by Qumana

“— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

These are the words that close out the Declaration of Independence. The men who signed the document that paved the way for our nation knew the possible consequences of their actions.

John Hancock encouraged his fellow delegates to hang together in their task of signing. To which the Benjamin Franklin, in all his wit and wisdom gave his famous reply, “We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.”

Years later Benjamin Rush remembered how incredibly serious the moment was, as well as the gallows humor these great men expressed in a letter to John Adams.

Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our death warrants? The silence and the gloom of the morning were interrupted, I well recollect, only for a moment by Colonel Harrison of Virginia, who said to Mr. Gerry at the table; “I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air for an hour or two before you are dead.” This speech produced a transient smile, but was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was concluded.

There is some debate as to how much the signers actually suffered during the war with the British that resulted from their signing. There is no doubt, however that several of the men did endure hardships because of their convictions.

John Adams had a firm belief in the rightness of the cause and its ultimate victory. He also had an incredibly clear vision of the importance of the day. The very next day after the Declaration of Independence was adopted he wrote his wife and told her about the future of the day.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

The bottom line is that the course of events was far from certain on that hot July day in Philadelphia. Yet these great men went forward anyway with the force of their convictions in spite of the risks.

And in what was perhaps one of the greatest coincidences of history on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, both Thomas Jefferson (its author) and John Adams (arguably its leading advocate) died on the same day. Adams was 91 when he died that evening. His last words were, “Jefferson still survives.” He was unaware that Jefferson himself was gravely ill and had passed away earlier that afternoon at 83 years old.

There is definitely a Divine Symmetry to the events surrounding this historic document. Folks can argue the place of the US in modern history and the pros and cons of current foreign policy. But few would dispute the revolutionary ideals put forth in the Declaration of Independence or the passion and determination of the men who signed that amazing document.

Enjoy today. Celebrate in the manner Adams envisioned. Honor those who sacrificed and went before.

For a short summary of the signers, what kind of people they were and what happened to them check out this article. And you can find short biographies of each of the signers here.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS Feed.

Powered by Qumana

The Slacker Manager has some good advice about avoiding office politics today. His condensed short version is “my plan basically boils down to being consistently authentic.”

I’ve got to say I pretty much agree with what he has to say on that score. I’ve never really been one much to bother with the whole office politics thing myself.

Which I suppose could be a little weird considering that I have been known to be a bit opinionated on the whole politics front. But having weighty discussions about who might be best to lead our country is really not the same thing, is it? Besides, I’m even throttling back on my political interests these days.

For me the whole national politics thing grew out of a need I had to be “right” and to “win” the debate. I guess you could say I’m changing on that score. I’m less concerned with being right than I am with getting to know folks anymore. I guess I am growing more interested in what other people have to say and less worried about making myself heard.

But as far as the whole office politics thing goes, I never really got sucked into that whole scene although I do know how to windge when I see the corporate office making decisions that seem out of touch with the field.

My approach to the whole office politics thing is similar in that I use what I call the Popeye approach to life. You know, “I am what I am and that’s all that I am and I ain’t no more!” (Sometimes it helps if you follow up the statement with a hearty “Ya-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-kah.”)

The Popeye approach has worked for me as a leadership principle too. Although it has created some conflict with from time to time with folks above me who wanted me to keep distant and maintain the dignity of my office, blah, blah, blah. I just take my beating from those kinds of bosses and keep on being me.

Like the Genie told Aladdin, “Beeee yourself.” It’s good advice. And not just where politics are concerned.

Enjoy!

This photo has stuck in my craw since I saw it earlier in the week:

Apparently some high-schoolers in California did it to make a statement to Congress about proposed immigration reform legislation. I suspect this photo will do more to convince Americans the answer is to go hard on illegal immigrants than to give them a pass. The details of the story are over on Michelle Malkin’s site.

Now I don’t think I am guilty of guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry here, although I know I do have that capacity in me. Gregory Boyd has some interesting insights about Christians in politics regarding that whole topic. My thinking was along those lines when I decided to steer away from politics in my ramblings here.

I realize there are flaws with my country. However I also know we live in a fallen world and I believe that our national system mitigates the flaws better than any others so far this side of eternity. A whole lot of people in the world agree with me because so many of them go to such extreme lengths to get here. Perhaps because I spent a few years in uniform I am a little sensitive toward our national symbols, especially our flag.

Nor am I anti-immigration. Gorgeous and I have an affinity toward foreigners. I suspect part of that may be a result of our being Yankees down here in the South.

Literally half of the guys in my office are foreign nationals. However they go through extraordinary lengths to work within our immigration system. And it is a painful process. For example they take days off work to overnight in Atlanta so they can be at the INS office first thing in the morning only to sit around all day waiting on the bureaucrats to take their finger prints every six months. I think they have a legitimate beef when they point out that their fingerprints don’t often change, so why take them so many multiple times?

Going through all the bureaucratic gyrations required to work within the system is especially galling for them when they see others flaunting their disregard for the law and getting away with it.

They, like me, don’t see that we have an immigration problem. We have an illegal immigration problem. Apparently there are somewhere between 10-15 million illegal aliens living in the US. That means they are pretty interwoven through the fabric of our society. We can’t simply round up all the illegals and ship them home without it adversely affecting our economy, perhaps significantly.

At the same token, we shouldn’t just pass a law that makes all the illegals here suddenly legal. The arguments for that run along the same lines as the ones for legalizing drugs. They pretty much boil down to something like this: Since law enforcement can’t seem to get a grip on the problem, therefore we should make it legal. I don’t agree with that. Just because something is hard sure doesn’t mean it is still the right thing to do.

The right answer to our current immigration issues is somewhere in between the two extremes. And I don’t have a clue what that right answer is.

Which brings me back to the photo above. To me the folks protesting about proposed immigration reforms are striking a rather persuasive tone. However I suspect they are pushing public opinion in the opposite direction from their apparent goals.

Degrading the primary symbol of the country you reside in illegally is not really the best way to persuade the citizens of that country to give you equal rights and status.

In case you might feel the flag thing was just the act of some impulsive immature high-school kids, take a look at these photos taken at the L.A protests:

Then again, maybe the goal of the protestors is not for equal status. Maybe they want to annex the Southwest and make it as impoverished as the country they left…

I know I promised to steer away from political stuff. But since this deals with fellow Christians, I am going to go there.

Four men from a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams, in Iraq basically protesting what the US & Coalition forces are doing, were taken hostage back on 26 November. It should be pointed out that the people who kidnapped them were the very people these four guys were supporting, not the people they were protesting against. Their self proclaimed goal was “documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses… but the current focus of the team has expanded to include efforts to end occupation and militarization of the country.” The CPT motto appropriately is “Getting In the Way.”

Suffice it to say that I fundamentally disagree with their core purpose which “seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war.” I do understand the principles behind genuine conscientious objectors, and I respect Christians who hold those beliefs strongly. I happen to disagree with those who claim that war is never the right answer for Christians, though. There are times when evil must be resisted, and in our fallen world that means that there are times when violent force must be used. Now getting into the specifics of the current situation in Iraq gets too close to politics so I’m not going there today.

But that brings us back to the four guys from CPT who got in the way and found themselves kidnapped by the very people they went there to support. One of the four, happened to be the American of the group, was found dead on 10 March 2006. Based on intelligence gathered from a captured enemy combatant, a commando raid went in yesterday and found the other three alive and brought them out of captivity.

CPT posted a press release on their web site initially headlined, “CPT: Celebrates the Peacemakers Release.” In the second paragraph, after claiming that their guys were released, they said, “We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq.” (UPDATE: I found the original wording of the statement again here)

It seems obvious to me that these folks don’t have a firm grasp on the English language. It is readily apparent to most folks that the only way these guys would have been “released” by the kidnappers who held them is in the same manner that the American was “released” a couple of weeks ago, with a bullet in the head. They were rescued by violent warriors who were willing to put their own lives on the line to see that the ingrates were not executed by their captors.

Now, since they received such a backlash from their fundamental misstatement and obvious total ingratitude of what was done for them, they have revised their press release to say that their guys were, get this, “freed.” It seems a weasely choice of wording to me, but I guess if they actually came out and said the truth, that their people were rescued, then they would have to re-think their fundamental beliefs about violence never being the right answer. No point in examining a core belief, is there?

Perhaps part of the answer can be found in the wording of Statement of Conviction which the guys who were kidnapped (one of whom was killed)signed, which says in part

“We reject the use of violent force to save our lives should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a violent conflict situation. We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us. We ask for equal justice in the arrest and trial of anyone, soldier or civilian, who commits an act of violence, and we ask that there be no retaliation on their relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. Therefore, any penalty should be in the spirit of restorative justice, rather than in the form of violent retribution.”

So basically they forgive those who are their enemies. That part makes sense to me. But unfortunately their reaction to this whole chain of events crystallizes what can be seen throughout their web site, namely that they’ve twisted the concept of “forgive your enemies” to the point where part of it for them now includes, “resent your friends.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work for me. It’s simply not what I find when I read the Bible.

But hey, at least they stayed true to their motto. They certainly got in the way.

UPDATE:

I’m having a running debate with Dan over at Stones Cry Out about whether the CPT guys really have a balanced view of things. Interesting for me anyway…

OK. Spring is in the air and I’m back. It’s been a long time since I rambled on in here.

I took a break to have a go at being a full up partner with Gorgeous in her business. It didn’t work out so well. Between a full time job with goofy, unpredictable hours (I am in the maritime industry after all), volunteer commitments, and general life stuff that naturally just comes up, throwing in the expectations and time requirements of a partner was just too much. Too much… tension… in the Cree household.

So I will fall back from my spot on the line to a more staff oriented role as far as Gorgeous’ business is concerned. It may be a more active staff role than before. We’ll see.

Another change I am going to make is that I am going to be steering away from politics for the most part. I still have my opinions. As most of you know, my political leanings are still slightly right of Attila the Hun. But debating folks about world politics seems incredibly futile to my way of thinking.

Besides, Gorgeous says it makes me cranky.

She’s probably right. I don’t want to end up like so many older retired guys I know who sit around all day watching CNN and complain about how messed up the country is. What does that accomplish?

Instead I am going to focus these posts on my own direct personal observations on life and the people in it. That means there will probably be more about cats.

It also means you better be nice to me – because I will likely write about you here for both my readers to see. (Hi Mom!)

Well, time for me to go to work.

Enjoy!

John,

Thank you. You have very effectively demonstrated my original point.

As a refresher, my point was this: Anyone who claims to support the troops but not what the troops are doing ends up performing intellectual gymnastics of such complexity as to boggle the mind.

You drew a moral equivalence between our soldier’s actions and those of Sadam’s soldiers, saying you “see no moral difference.” And then in the very next paragraph you claim “I am not protesting “what our troops are doing.””

But really you are. You just ease your conscious by thinking that if you are devaluing the troops, it is not that bad. Because after all Bush devalued them too by sending them to war in the first place. Therefore you feel that your devaluation is not a big thing and you should go ahead and do it with your protest.

This is the type of thinking that I was talking about, heavy on emotions and light on logic. I really didn’t expect to see it so clearly from you.

I did some quick research on this WP issue that has you so upset. I started by googling “fallujah white phosphorus civilian” on the various news network sites. Here’s what I found:

ABC & Fox – No Matches.
CBS – 2 stories from 2002, pre-invasion, speculating about Sadam’s weapons stash.
CNN – Reports that Iraq is investigating allegations that the US intentionally targeted civilians.
MSNBC – 2 stories from the Reuters wire basically summarizing the allegations made by some Italian film makers in a documentary they did about the recent fighting in Fallujah.

I didn’t see any pictures of burned bodies which you said are all over the news. Admittedly I don’t watch very much broadcast news so I would have missed it there anyway. I get the vast majority of my news from the internet. That way I can quickly look at much of the raw data behind the stories and come to my own conclusions.

On this one it seemed to me that the hubbub all pointed to a film made by an Italian crew called “Fallujah – The Hidden Massacre.” So I downloaded it and watched all 27 minutes and 8 seconds of it to see for myself what the reporters were talking about.

I could write pages tearing apart the ridiculous lies and false implications made in the film but it is not worth my time. They use lots of second hand info and hearsay to try to back up their positions and they show a lot of gruesome dead bodies for shock value, but they present remarkably few facts. Therefore, let’s just stick to the WP issue.

As a star witness, they bring on an ex-soldier who says he was in on the Fallujah fighting. He claims unequivocally that WP is a chemical weapon. His assertion is patently wrong.

White Phosphorus is NOT poison gas. It is an incendiary material. Upon exposure to air, it will burst into flames and is difficult if not impossible to put out. While burning it creates a cloud of phosphorus oxide. Phosphorus oxide reacts with the humidity in the air to form phosphoric acid, the additive that gives Pepsi, Coke and soda pop its tangy taste and makes it so that Coke will clean rust really well. This stuff isn’t poisonous, but it is irritating; it is in fact edible if it isn’t in a concentrated form. If you got it in your eyes it would sting like lemon juice or vinegar, but it’s not going to kill you.

WP is used as by the military because it burns well and gives off lots of light and smoke. Therefore it makes a good marker for targeting weapons systems because it is easy to see from a long way off. When a WP round is landed on the battle field, artillery spotters and forward air controllers use it as a reference point to direct other shooters to the specific target.

Fighters on the battle field know this. Therefore it also happens to be an effective tool to flush the enemy out of prepared defensive positions. If a WP round lands nearby, they know they are about to be blown up by something heavy so often they flee their position. When they are in the open, they are easier to kill with lighter weapons thereby reducing the amount of collateral damage inflicted by our troops.

It’s a good tactic that saves the lives of innocents.

Now if burning WP comes in physical contact with human flesh the results can be horrific. I know of an evangelist who had a WP grenade that he was throwing detonate from an enemy round right beside his head, blowing him from his boat and horribly disfiguring his face in Viet Nam. His survival story is a very compelling picture of God’s grace.

But my point is that to intentionally target civilians by using WP as a weapon instead of a marker (like Sadam’s troops did) is morally reprehensible. Using it as a tool on the battlefield to mark targets (like our troops did) is a whole different deal and can actually reduce the number of innocents killed. It takes incredible mental gymnastics to claim otherwise.

It is interesting to note that the guy never actually claims that we used WP as a weapon. In fact, he apparently never actually saw the stuff being used on the battlefield at all because his proof consists of hearing radio traffic about its use. I have no doubt that we did use WP on the battle field. I just don’t believe we used it to inflict mass casualties on civilians.

If we had we would be hearing it from many more sources. And they would be much more credible that this Italian group.

Now I’d like to address your assertion that our military has been decimated. That’s a pretty silly emotional statement devoid of fact. To have lost 10% of our approximately 2 million uniformed members (what decimated means) we would have lost upwards of 200,000 dead. We’ve lost about 1% of that. Give me a break!

It is unfortunate that a grandfather of 52 has been activated. However it has nothing to do with our combat losses. No, it results from the changes in our force structure that have happened over the years. Back when I was in uniform our “don’t ask, don’t tell” Commander in Chief and the Congress decided that with the fall of the Soviet Union we should take a “peace dividend” and draw down our active duty forces. As a result of that idea, which has some merit by the way, we are now much more heavily reliant on reserves.

Now this grandfather made it his choice to draw a pay check from our government for many years with the understanding that if he was ever needed, the government could activate him and send him to war. There were several points during his reserve career that he could have chosen to stop getting that check. He took the money. Now he is being called on to serve. Choices have consequences.

The last thing I want to point out is that, to support your decimated comment you mention one soldier killed that comes quickly to mind from the whole state of Wisconsin. To you this is evidence of mass butchery of our troops in a modern war?

I gave you twice the number of casualties from my limited experience in uniform of people I actually knew (not just read about) that were killed during peace time. Your evidence is still lacking.

And just FYI, the re-enlistment rates have been remarkably high over the last couple of years. If things were as bad as you claim, our troops would be getting out in droves. Also, last year the military significantly raised their recruiting goals and nearly hit those much higher targets. This year they well exceeded their recruiting goals.

So the call up of reservists has nothing to do with running out of soldiers because they are being killed in huge numbers. It has to do with a force structure that is designed to rely heavily on reservists.

Again Respectfully,

Chris

Chris,

I only have time right now to answer one question that you have asked me. The rest of your story can be seen on Fox News.

I see no moral difference between Saddam’s use of white phosphorous (WP) and ours. The published photos of our WP use clearly show toasted civilians. And you did not address the terminology of Saddam’s “Chemical Weapon” WP, and our benign tool of war WP.

One other point I would like to clarify. I am not protesting “what our troops are doing”. I am protesting what our crooked lying government is doing. My actions do not “devalue our troops” as you say. The Bush administration already has that covered. If you will notice, our voluntary military is currently decimated to the point where they are calling out of retirement a 52 year old grandfather from Mosinee WI, and current troops are being stop loss back door drafted for up to 30 years.

Yesterday they buried 19 year old Pfc. Alex Gaunky from Sparta WI. Remember, this was to install an Islamic Republic government, where women have no rights.

John

John,

I re-read my post below just to be sure. And yes, I do believe that which you so casually dismiss as “crap”.

I do believe that donning the uniform is dangerous in peace time having watched buddies die.

I do believe that modern warfare is incredibly destructive, and, as painful as it is, we are still amazingly fortunate to have suffered as few losses as we have thus far.

I do believe that protesting what our troops are doing devalues their service. Having 6 currently deployed service members in the 13 or so houses on my cul-de-sac, and having spoken with several of them and their families, I assure you that those troops feel similarly.

Apparently you are not quite sure whether you believe protesting would devalue their service or not. But my point is moot because it is also apparent you really don’t care. Even if you believed it would you’d still go forward and just be “sorry.”

Likewise with the whole enemy propaganda thing, I believe what I wrote because I’ve checked out Al-Jazeera’s web site, looked at the facts. However again it appears you don’t really care how it affects the troops in the field as long as your protesting damages the sitting administration.

Oh, yes. And I do believe the bit about the Islamists too because I’ve looked into what the Koran has to say about it. And I also happen to believe what they actually say day in day out about wanting to kill us. Call me a sucker, but when people say they want to kill me (over and over again) I tend to believe they are not speaking metaphorically, especially when they are sending mad bombers to blow them selves up nearby while they keep saying it.

Now you can dismiss all that simply as crap. Don’t let facts get in the way of your protesting.

Speaking of facts, let’s talk about “illegality” of the war, as you termed it. You do realize that Congress voted to authorize the President to use force of arms “to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” And that was well prior to the invasion of 19 March 2003. How then is the war illegal?

When you refer to the “lies” that the war is based on, do you mean statements like this?

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.”

Of course that wasn’t President Bush on the eve of war who said that. No, it was Senator Rockefeller, D-WV, back in October 2002.

Do you really believe that Saddam had no WMD’s? HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE!!! Have you forgotten the pictures of whole villages, including women and children, lying bloated after his gas attacks? You can’t actually use something (like the WMD poison gas) unless you have it!!

Do you doubt he was seeking nuclear weapons? Senator Rockefeller didn’t.

I could go on but this has gotten too long already. Sorry to clutter it up with all these inconvenient facts. (Crap, I know.)

However I do want to ask you one other question. You seem to claim that our military’s use of WP is just as bad as Saddam’s. I am assuming you know that Saddam intentionally targeted civilians who were incapable of shooting back including women and children when he used the stuff. When our guys shoot it, we shoot at combatants with guns who are shooting back. Our guys (and gals) risk death and do in fact actually die because they are so hesitant to kill innocents.

Are you saying you see no moral difference between these two scenarios?

If so, please allow me a little ethics primer: Intentionally targeting civilians is wrong and evil. Intentionally targeting combatants shooting at you is unpleasant and unfortunate, but not wrong or evil.

But then if you don’t really care that your protesting would harm our troops and strengthen our enemies, why would you draw a difference between our troop’s actions and Saddam’s? Besides, if you were to draw a distinction, it might cause you to think about what the implications of your protest actually are. Wouldn’t want crap like difficult implications to get in the way of a good protest, would we?

You claim it is our fault that they want to kill us, “we give them plenty of reasons.” Even if that were true (and it’s a viewpoint I see little actual factual evidence to support) cutting and running will not make them like us more. No, history shows that appeasing emboldens the aggressors. Just ask Chamberlain.

Respectfully,

Chris

Chris,

Do you really believe that crap?

I protest this illegal war in Iraq because it is based on lies smeared together by our corrupt dysfunctional government. Let’s see, was it weapons of mass destruction, or was it freeing the Iraqi people, oh wait, was it the spreading of democracy, oops, it was the creation of an Islamic Theocratic Republic. Are we proud of ourselves yet?

If my protesting this war devalues the service of our troops, I am sorry. Somehow, I cannot believe my protesting can devalue the service of our troops as much as the bush administration sending them off to a war based on lies.

If protesting this was provides juicy propaganda to the folks that want to kill us, well I am sorry for that too. Our military actions provide plenty of juicy propaganda for this. Our government backs this up with their ill-chosen words (Crusade), and actions. Somehow, when Saddam used white phosphorus, we called it a chemical weapon. When we use it, we call it a tool of war. Are we proud of ourselves yet?

If we wonder why these people want to kill us, we give them plenty of reasons. Would you take well to occupation?

John

Before you get your protesting shoes all polished up, I’d like to ask you what it is you are eager to get to protesting. Protesting something as general as “the war” or “the war in Iraq” has implications that many may not have thought through.

Please understand that I totally believe there is room for debate here. I think that with any worthy undertaking it is very healthy to look at various sides and viewpoints. I am not against the principle of protesting at all. Nor do I agree with our current president on every issue in spite of my conservative leanings.

The first thing that must be understood is that protesting something as vague as “the war” has an adverse affect on everyone in uniform, whether State-side, or over in Afghanistan or Iraq for a number of reasons. Anyone who claims to support the troops but not what the troops are doing ends up performing intellectual gymnastics of such complexity as to boggle the mind.

The truth is that military’s job is to break things and kill people. I know. I’ve worn the uniform. They sign on to go into harm’s way knowing that there is a real risk of being killed. Even in peace time.

As an aside, one of the reasons I got out of the Navy (back in ’95) was that I was tired of going to memorial services for my buddies. One of my flight school roommates was killed when his helicopter crashed at night flying off the USS America. I literally watched another buddy of mine kill himself by ejecting too late from his F/A-18 when it lost control right off the catapult on the USS Saratoga.

I say this not to shock you, but rather to help you understand that wearing the uniform is a dangerous business. Anytime. Our people in uniform know this. Even so they are still all volunteers! Now I certainly will not diminish the pain and suffering that is born by the families of those who died. And I still honor the memories of Rich and Sonny. But to have lost slightly over 2100 souls in over 2-½ years of fighting a modern war is nothing short of miraculous.

Yet when we protest what our troops are assigned to do we devalue their service. The protestors may say that they support the troops. But somehow their protest signs and slogans never seem edify the military. Perhaps that’s because the vast majority of the people who feel compelled to actually protest “the war” really don’t support the military as much as they claim they do.

Another reason protesting the war is hazardous to our troops is that it provides juicy propaganda for the people who are killing them over in Iraq. When al-Jazeera is showing clips of our Senators and Congressmen demanding our military pull out now, it allows our enemies to say, “See! See! Their own leadership says that what the Americans are doing is wrong. If they are wrong then killing them must be right. Come join us and kill more Americans!” Imagine how they’d respond to thousands of us waving signs and shouting to bring the military home before the job is done.

The other thing I find interesting is that many people who may be inclined to protest the war will say things like, “those people are not our enemies.” That’s just plain ignorant. We may not want them to be our enemies, but they have decided that we are their enemies.

According to the Islamists way of thinking, the thinking of the ones killing our troops, their enemies (i.e. us) have three options. We can either convert to Islam (their flavor of Islam, that is), become slaves to the Islamists, or die. Preferably at their hand.

Running away and disengaging from this war that we are in the process of winning won’t change their world view and how they perceive we should fit into it. My question to those who believe we should forfeit the war in Iraq as we draw near winning it would be which of the three options would you prefer? The way I see it there are only four choices: conversion, slavery, death, or war. Take out the war that leaves three. Which one do you want?

For the people who say that we just need more understanding of our enemy, I will explain it in simple, mono-syllabic words that are easy for any first grader to understand: They – want – to – kill – us.

Now that may not be enough to make them our enemy to someone who is more used to intellectual gymnastics than I am. But it really doesn’t matter because they’ve already declared that we are their enemy. Which, just for the record, by definition means that they are our enemy regardless of whether we recognize it or not.

I understand that it is unpleasant to see disturbing images from a war zone. War is an ugly, unpleasant business. But there are times when it is a necessary one. When there is a group that is dedicated to killing us seems to me to be one of those times.

We are an amazing country. We seem to be undefeatable in war and can only loose fights by forfeit like we did in Viet Nam or Somalia. It astonishes me that there seems to be a growing call in our country to throw yet another fight. Are we really like a marathon runner who, even though he is way out front, sees no need to bother crossing the finish line, but would rather just get in his car and go home because he is winded?

Pulling our troops out now will not lesson the killing in Iraq but rather increase it dramatically. Not only that, but pulling out now will only save American lives in the extreme short run. Long term it will lead to a grater loss of American lives because it will embolden and strengthen those who want to kill us.

Do you want to see some encouraging images from the war? Check out this site here: Michael Yon: Online Magazine. Michael Yon’s dispatches are fascinating, and should be required reading.

The bottom line is war stinks. We can debate about pre-war intelligence and WMD’s till the cows come home. But I strongly disagree with anyone who says we shouldn’t resist those who are committed to destroy us. I for one would much rather have the IED’s going off on the other side of the world than in my local police station or elementary school. I do not want to see my country burn for weeks on end.

I am American, not French!