About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets D

[wwmfjd]

[wwmfjd]

[harry]

Dear wwmfjd:

Well, while you were screaming about someone else going off to war, Al Queda took some serious casualties ... compliments of some 500 or so special forces personnel under the Bush direction of the CIA. And, I admit, 40,000 dead ... blown to bits ... Al Queda armed-combatants are difficult to count. Al Queda compounds our accounting efforts by not requiring their militants to wear ID tags. So, I cannot ascertain that some 40,000 were killed ... some estimates have it at 60,000 armed-combatants with Talaban warriors included. And, I am quite sure that our CIA operatives made little effort to notify their next of kin and/or separate the cornucopia of body parts. Please understand that our CIA special units move quickly when they are killing wholesale.

But, rest assured, a short time after 911, the Afghan grass and shrubbery was deluged with fresh Al Queda blood. The CIA would have killed Osama bin Laden, as well, however, politics got in the way and our man on-scene & in-charge was relieved for refusing an Al Queda surrender plea at Tora Bora. As I understand, the CIA leader on-scene responded to Osama that he intended to kill them all ... there would be no surrender. Naturally, our liberal-minded politicians could not stomach something like that, so in true backdoor politicking style changes on-scene were made in order to appease our allies. Osama bin Laden is a son of Saudi influence.

The CIA leader on-scene was from New York state. I suppose he was a little upset with Al Queda and 911 was fresh in his mind.

As for the lying, as far as I know it was public knowledge that Al Queda had these combatant numbers in Afghanistan, along with tens of thousands of Talaban armed-warriors intermixed with their units. Rest assured, those Al Queda-Talaban warriors who did not see the wisdom of "changing sides" (hardcore Muslim warriors do that often) were either dead or being massacred in the hills of Tora Bora by our aerial gunships (Afghan warlords refer to our gunships as the "Death Ray").

Don't be too quick to discount our government. Just think of what will come down if this Iraq experiment fails. I believe our government ... contrary to my personal beliefs ... is handling the matter in Iraq and Afghanistan in the most human manner possible. If you disagree, then that is fine; however, Fundamentalist Islam will be annihilated ... one way or the other. All the screaming in the world will not alter the inevitable. The West cannot co-exists with Fundamentalist Islam.

With Aloha,

[Richard]

wwmfjd,
Sorry guy, you're among people that have walked the walk, not just sat outside and punted.

You're talking to a United States Recon Marine who knows a bit about Vietnam. You're barking up the wrong tree - have no idea what you're talking about. In addition, my son has served three tours in Iraq - just volunteered to go back again, all 24/7 combat. He'd be the first to tell you you're all wet. Also, have two nephews, one a Marine sniper - two tours in Iraq. The other is a Marine in Afghanistan.

You've lost my respect fella, maybe Harry will give you some time, but I doubt it. Harry's walked the walk himself.

Color me outtta here!

[Richard]

wwmfjd,
Sorry guy, you're among people that have walked the walk, not just sat outside and punted.

You're talking to a United States Recon Marine who knows a bit about Vietnam. You're barking up the wrong tree - have no idea what you're talking about. In addition, my son has served three tours in Iraq, all 24/7 combat. - and volunteering to go back again. He'd be the first to tell you you're all wet, and I'm willing to bet you'd be damned reluctant to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about, at least not to his face.

I Also, have two nephews, one a Marine sniper - two tours in Iraq. The other is a Marine in Afghanistan.

You've lost my respect fella, besides the Vietnam comment, you're talking out of talking points from the left, not expeience and understanding. Maybe Harry will give you some time, but I doubt it. Harry's walked the walk himself.

This war has nothing to do with politics - we didn't start it, and it's been going on long before 9/11 - bin-Laden declared the war, not us. It's about survival as a nation the citizenry, your's as well as mine, and everyone else's in America.

You do, however, deserve respect for being man enough to admit that you 've never served your country.

Color me outtta here!

[wwmfjd]

I'm sorry I've lost your respect, but sometimes there's no help for that. But US citizenship is not conferred only to those in the military, and I speak out when I get the opportunity. I've argued my entire adult life for a mandatory military enlistment like Israel has - the resulting wide-based involvment would spell then end of corporate marketing for wars like the one we are in now.

Why do polls show that 70% of our troops in Iraq believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - something that Bush himself has had to repudiate?

[Richard]

[harry]

Dear wwmfjd:

Up to the 1960s, the United Stated held a compulsory military service for all able-bodied males. There existed temporary deferments for school and physical disabilities. However, all males knew after age of 19, they were obligated for six years military service (usually two years active and four years reserve). It was a good system that cycled many non-skilled males through a technical education program. Upon completion of the active portion of military service, an adult male, for the most part, could assume a technical skilled job in civilian industry.

During the later 1960s, with the advent of the Jewish-American-led protest movements, the US Congress acquiesced in amending the compulsory nature of military service and its draft mechanism. Eventually, with the enactment of 18-year-to-vote measure, compulsory service was replaced with an all volunteer force.

Now, it is clear, to me, who really benefited from the enactment of an all volunteer force: Persons of some degree of affluence were simply exempt from ever being inducted. Also, what seemed an obvious exchange for the right to vote at the age of 21 years was overlooked such that, with the voting age reduced to 18 years of age, military service disappeared as an inherent requirement. We now have adult males who eschew military service voting on sensitive issues of which they themselves would never choose to engage or even comprehend ... other than via TV.

Do we have a problem? Well, of course we do. We have people voting in ignorance of the reality of the world. Their concept of the world's reality comes from some liberal professor's (someone who likewise eschews military service) lectures. If all we can muster in our effort to negotiate the world is classroom dynamics, then we are like recruits explaining the feeling of jumping out of airplane that they have never seen, much less jumped out of. We chatter in ignorance. Yet, the ignorance acquires sensitivity to its shortcomings, and it votes accordingly.

Lastly, the liberal position, though appealing to some fantasized moral order, is just that ... a fantasy. It does not correspond to the real world anymore than Marxism. The classroom cannot teach you about the real world. You have to experience it.

With Aloha,

[wwmfjd]

People like Harry, Richard, and their noble progeny are America's salt of the earth - there is absolutely not doubt there. My perspective - developed through the mentorship in my youth of three WWII vets, and close friendship in adulthood with two Vietnam vets - is that our National Security State cynically misuses the dedication and trust of such people to venal ends.

In the Iraq situation we have national leaders who all eschewed military service during brutal conflicts for which they were eligible and which they supported. Bush pulled strings to remain stateside during Vietnam, then bugged out - as he said to a Houston Chronicle reporter in 1984 - "I didn't want to blow my ear out with a shotgun or run off to Canada, so I joined the guard"; Rummy sat in college through Korea, then signed up at 22; Cheney had "other priorities" that kept him out of Vietnam and now, after only five years of his adult life in the public sector, he's worth over 190 million dollars - I didn't know congress paid that well. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Frum; all the same. These people now create wars as profit centers for the corporations to which they are connected, and Harry, Richard, and their families pay the cost. The fact that we now have an all-volunteer military is used callously by our leadership to absolve themselves of guilt; you've heard them say it: "well, they volunteered...."

Furthermore, our leaders are supposed to act en loco parentis to our troops, and take command responsiblility for things that go wrong; not find the lowest ranking scapegoat for policy disasters and chucke them in jail. "Support our troops to this administration apparently means: blaming troops on the ground for not securing Saddam's stores of munitions and explosives, which were looted and are being used in IEDs; blame the troops on the ground for permitting the looting of Iraq's infrastracture following the invasion; blame the enlisted "night shift" for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib; blame the troops on the ground for their actions in turbulent "free fire zones" that are created by our aimless policy;...

I ended my last screed with a question regarding the skewed impressions our troops hold regarding the reasons for this war (i.e. Saddam attacked us on 9/11"). Where do those mistaken ideas come from?

And finally, another non sequitur question: Why is it that everyone we fight used to worek for the CIA? Ho Chi Mihn (a bona fide OSS agent during the Japanese occupation of his country during WWII) Noriega, Osama, and Saddam were all trainied and funded creatures of our foreign policy. Does this inspire confidence?

[harry]

Dear wwmfjd:

The Vietnam Conflict was worth fighting, despite the nonsense promoted by the American left ... and those who eschewed fighting. The ideas behind the conflict were accurate. And, despite the promulgations of the American Left in order to buttress their lack of courage, we won the conflict in 1974. Unfortunately, the South Vietnamese Regime unilaterally-chose to invade North Vietnam in 1975. When the United States refused to support their unilateral aggression, the entire country fell as South Vietnamese troops quickly defected to the North.

The unpalatable aspect of the Vietnam Conflict was the Johnson Administration's willingness to allow the Jewish-American-led protest movement unbridled access to the media in order to spread their cowardly messages. The media was wrong to promote a defeatist attitude then in Vietnam, and they are wrong now to promote similarly about Iraq. The other unfortunate issue was the ability of affluence to steer their offspring away from military service, yet develop a mechanism with which they could succeed later on in life. Naturally, this mechanism was championed by all the affluent class, since they all dodged military service. And, let us face it, so may young Americans in the 1960s were entrained into the protest movement (free sex, drugs, etc.) that it evolved into a solidarity of cowardice that continues to this day. Leaders from all walks of life cannot cope with ex-military. The ex-military personnel are a constant reminded that, deep down, these leaders chickened out on Vietnam.

Let me rephrase: the Vietnam Conflict was the correct move in order to check the spread of communism. Yes, young Americans were going to die. However, it was our generation's time to anti-up. Unfortunately, many young Americans, bathed in affluence, chose to chicken out. That is the bottom line: You have those who filled the lines, and those who ran away. Naturally, an outpouring of sympathy inundated the political sphere in order to protect the wayward ways of the children of afluence. Ultimately, it was decided that it was OK to be a coward in America ... you could still grow to be President!

Reflecting on your comments, referring to betrayal of our troops, I could not agree more. The same cowardice that permeates the Liberal Left infest many of our senior officers. A senior officer with aspiration of a star will play the Liberal Left game to the point that high-school-educated soldier in the field requires the mental accuracy of a successful Jewish-American lawyer in a courtroom in his decisions, under fire, with an M-16. Ludicrous! Yet, what more can we expect from a generation of individuals lacking the experience of military service? The soldier in the field is being criticized so that the politician can mask his own cowardice and incompetence. The same holds true for the senior office who denigrates the soldier in the field in favor of advancement from the incompetent and cowardly politician.

By creating an all volunteer force, we have, likewise, created, as a by-product, an incompetent executive branch, desirous of some form of self-respect for dodging military service.

Yes, we have self-serving individuals in the military. But, I believe, for the most part, the other officers, where possible, move to eliminate as many of them from the ranks as possible. You have to experience the military to appreciate the esprit de corps. Politicians are a problem. Hitting them on the cowardice issue usually shuts them up.

I should mention that an all volunteer force creates a professional force that is lacking in a conscript force. An all volunteer force, with respect to efficiency and professionalism, far exceeds the expectations of a conscript force. We were not altogether wrong in opting for an all volunteer force.

With Aloha,

[harry]

To All:

In a realted matter, this Letter to the Editor reveals the feelings of those who filled the lines during the Vietnam Conflict about those who ran away:

http://starbulletin.com/2006/07/02/editorial/letters.html

Protesters learned nothing from past
Last Tuesday I was on my way into town and I was rather shocked and saddened to see Kona's own contingent of Cindy Sheehan wannabes marching along the Queen Kaahumanu extension, making a spectacle of themselves and causing dangerous traffic distractions in their efforts to demonstrate their disloyalty as misguided Americans (Star-Bulletin, June 28). I was struck by the absence of the U.S. flag .

As I went on about my business I was consumed with thoughts of how these individuals were echoes from another era -- the Vietnam War era. Back then , their predecessors made sure their voices were heard loud and clear throughout this land, and finally when in 1975 and the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh came they achieved their long-held goal of seeing zero American assistance or further involvement in Southeast Asia.

I imagine most went smugly back to their communes to smoke pot and enjoy free love while Cambodians were being frog-marched out of every town and city to death camps that resulted in the demise of more than 2 million. Even now, 30 years later, this has left a people, a culture and and a country reeling from the horrendous impact of that betrayal. In Vietnam, we can only guess how many people perished on the high seas seeking to escape the communist takeover, or how many died and were buried in shallow graves in countless jungle re-education camps throughout that sad land.

As bad as that was then, if America pulls up and runs away from its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the resulting bloodbath will make Southeast Asia look like a walk in the park. Those marchers are willing to sacrifice U.S. strategic interests, to endanger the entire Moslem world by abandoning it to the rabid and radical extremists who love to cut off heads with dull knives and whose long-term agenda is to see the entire world ruled and controlled by strict Shariah-based Wahabbist Islam.

The Kona protesters are a disgrace to our community and an insult to our military folks who are putting their young lives on the line for us every day.

Harley Earl
Kealakekua, Hawai

Comments: Kona is one of the two major cites on the Big Island of Hawaii. Second, the tally was over three million murdered in the Killing Fields of Cambodia for their scant association with Western ways.

The author of the letter fails to mention how the protesters and their media allies simply disregarded the mass murders that they set in motion from their detrimental activities. Yes, they saved their lives from having to fill the lines at the expense of millions ... truly, millions ... of Southeast Asians' lives. At no time do the protest movement leaders ... mostly Jewish-Americans ... take responsibility for the massacres of millions in Southeast Asia. They couldn't care less. They saved their skins, and that is all that matters. Now, through their solidarity of cowardice, they suppress any effort to expose their guilt (shame) from their behavior that sentenced millions to summary execution.

The author of the letter is correct. Those who march in protest are ignorant of history and oblivious to their own cowardice.

With Aloha,