Sgt. Dennis Weichel, American Hero

Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, gave the world a measure of the bravery and humanity of our soldiers serving abroad this week. Weichel, a father of three from Rhode Island, gave his life to save an Afghan girl from being run over by a 16-ton armored fighting vehicle this week. While Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called all Americans “Demons” , Weichel did not hesitate to give his life for a little girl in danger.


Weichel, a Rhode Island National Guardsman, was riding in the convoy in Laghman Province in eastern Afghanistan when he and his comrades saw Afghan children collecting shell casings on the road. The soldiers got out of the convoy to shoo the children away for their safety. Then, one girl suddenly ran back to grab a casing that the children collect for money. Weichel looked up and saw a MRAP, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, heading toward the girl. He ran in front of the armored vehicle, grabbed the girl, threw her to safety, and was then run over himself.

A member of the Rhode Island National Guard since 2001, Weichel had only arrived in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. He previously served in Iraq.

I can only imagine the pain and sorrow of this family. However, if it is some small comfort, the entire nation is mourning the loss of this wonderful human being.

Source: ABC

164 thoughts on “Sgt. Dennis Weichel, American Hero

  1. Raff,

    You are correct…. I’d like to say I knew him…. He is a hero anyway you look at it…..

  2. yes, it was selfless sacrifice and for what? So this little girl can grow up and be abused her entire life by a bunch of religious zealots from the 8th century?

    We need to be out of there, leave these people to their own devices.

  3. An honest to goodness hero. His family will have to deal forever with the empty chair at the table, and never a day will pass, as long as they take a breath, that they will not think of him.

    May he have Godspeed on his journey to forever…

    I also hope the driver of the MRAP is going to get some help. He will be traumatized forever by this tragedy as well.

    I share here a lament written five hundred years ago by a member of our family. It was written for the ten thousand who fell at the battle of Flodden Hill in 1513. It is now piped at military services around the world. It was piped for my own son at his service at the National Cemetery. Flowers of the Forest…. played by the Scots Guards.

  4. All honor to this warrior and father himself who sacrificed for a little child.

    When do we see detachable catch bags for casings for automatic weapons?
    Thrown and replaced they’d diminish the risk to kids.

    Of course, if we got out it would be better yet.

  5. Oh yeah.

    Because the presumption is that this girl will grow up to be a victim instead of the Afghan equivalent of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther.

    And of course the best way to honor a selfless and heroic act is to minimize it.

    Ahhhhh! The smell of Objectivism in the morning! Smells just like . . . selfish cynical horseshit.

  6. Brainless,

    I just read your post. You are a prick. This young man is fighting a cause he may or may not believe in. The child came first before country you asshole.

  7. “I can only imagine the pain and sorrow of this family. However, if it is some small comfort, the entire nation is mourning the loss of this wonderful human being.” -Jonathan Turley

    Professor Turley’s words bear repeating.

  8. OT
    Just to let you know, my help with food tonight is from Herat, Afghanistan. She is living with her boyfriend here in Stockholm, her family in another part of Sweden. And she is muslim as well. Said not all muslims are like we think, which speaks of her experiences here I guess.
    In the Herat district they speak a language closely allied to Persian (Farsi).
    There are at least four other language areas in Afdghanistan..
    She was impressed that I knew of Herat. Beautiful young lady.

    So not all women are suppressed in the muslim world. Some even can read.
    Irony.

  9. AN
    You repeat JT’s words.
    You’ve known him longer than I. Are his words to be construed straight up? I mean, it could be a justification of the war there, and our noble sacrifice of the Afghan lives—including this soldier who I feel the loss of personally.

  10. I707,
    I don’t think Professor Turley is using this incident to endorse any war. It is to endorse the heroism of anyone who has the moral fiber and courage to sacrifice his or own her life to save another. No greater love…..

  11. You know folks, there are other stories about which we should be concerned too.

    Like the 19 civilians killed in Kandahar region. Most of them old women, kids, and young teens. All allegedly by a lone crazy gunman.

    It’s disappeared from the news. Currently, Bales defense lawyer has a team there in Afghanistan—-but they are forbidden to go to the three villages to contact surviving witnesses, including the children.
    Isn’t that peculiar?

    A lady reporter got to visit, not the first day, but the second day, in spite of the alleged Taliban machine guns and mines, which hindered her first day visit. There were no villagers to interview. She got, through Karzai’s intervention, to visit the hospital where the kids were said to be getting care. Guess what? It was several men shooting. Some stood outside and held lights when one came in and shot my father …… Fill in the rest.

    So it goes. We are properly praising our hero who saved a Afghan girl.
    We are pushing for justice for Trayvon.

    But in the meanwhile, out and out murders are committed in Afghanistan, and the patsy was drugged according to his lawyer during 4 hours the evening of the murders. Etc.

    Do you believe your Pentagon?
    Well here is one extensive link of many where this has not been forgotten.
    In the meantime, the war criminals under Bush go to many places, but not Canada, and Europe. Wonder why Obama does this. Where do we have the standing to require an investigation for war crimes. Are the people so helpless.

    JT, what say you on this last point of standing, etc.?

    http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/0
    3/30/kandahar-massacre-this-is-not-what-it-appears-to-be/#comments

    And here is MSNBC which reports on the child witnesses testimony.

    http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10927844-child-witnesses-to-afghan-massacre-say-robert-bales-was-not-alone

  12. RIP, may his brave act of valor grant his family peace in their time of grievance, knowing that their son served this country selflessly to protect its honor.

  13. Sadly, this little girl will be taught to grow up and hate American soldiers and the nation they serve. -Jeff Metz

    Per Gene H., there is (in some quarters) “the presumption is that this girl will grow up to be a victim instead of the Afghan equivalent of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther. It’s my hope that she’ll remember the American who saved her and that something good will be spun from it.

  14. @ OS 1:11

    Ditto. Heroism has nothing, IMO, to do with war. The kind of heroism demonstrated here — or let’s call it the ultra compassionate response to a need — is atypical of the sort appropriated and lauded by the warrior cult. It seems to belong to the category of the best of humanity rather than the best in the military, without going too deeply into that oxymoron.

  15. “It’s my hope that she’ll remember the American who saved her and that something good will be spun from it.”

    Yes I hope this young man’s death will lead to us getting out of Afghanistan. He should have been with his children and raising them. No one is thinking about his children. I hope they are very young, otherwise their hearts are broken and the small comfort of knowing he saved another life wont be enough to fill the loss they are now feeling and will feel for the rest of their lives.

  16. “think what you want.”

    Judging by the response your lil’ bòn mót has garnered, it’s not just me that thinks Objectivism and its followers suck. However, I will continue to both think that and say that with or without your permission.

    “Rosa Parks or Martin Luther? You are high. Can I have some?”

    High? Only if empathy and compassion for others is a drug. You could have some. Unless you’re a sociopath, having empathy and compassion is a choice. It is a choice that is counter to your Objectivism though. You’ll have to choose.

  17. No one is thinking about his children. -Bron

    Jonathan Turley wrote: “I can only imagine the pain and sorrow of this family.” And I agreed, in an earlier comment. Of course, we’re thinking about his children.

  18. Don’t understand GeneH’s comment. but if he presumes to predict what the fate for that little girl will be in her future, and thus predict what the fate of other little girls there will be, then I can’t agree.

    They may not have white racism to fight and take a stand against.
    But no one demands they meet those high standards which Rosa and Martin Luther did, in order to have had better lives than their parents did.

    Are you presuming Gene H. or have I misunderstood? It won’t be the first time I have, of course.

    In spite of Talibans and terrorists, the feeling of the muslims I meet in Sweden is that extremism is decreasing. It’s increase is but an expression, say they, of reaction to their release from colonialism and the oppressive client regimes they’ve endured in Egypt, etc.
    ‘Lastly, Afghanistan is not uniform in any way. It is not 2 parts, but at least 6-8 parts. It in fact is not a nation. But then we are not either.

  19. We’re also thinking of his children when we criticize those who would minimize his heroic actions out of their love of selfishness.

    “yes, it was selfless sacrifice and for what? So this little girl can grow up and be abused her entire life by a bunch of religious zealots from the 8th century?”

    No. It was a selfless sacrifice by a man in a situation not of his own making in order to save the life of an innocent little girl also in a situation not of her own making. Minimizing that heroic action to criticize those who are responsible for the situation – the politicians – is not thinking of his children. It’s thinking (such as it is) about yourself and your agenda (withdrawal). While your agenda in this instance may be a good one, your selfishness in expression is what sucks, Bron. If you were really thinking about his children, you wouldn’t try to minimize the value of his actions.

  20. id707,

    You have misunderstood. I was pointing out the negative presumption of others by using a diametrically opposed presumption.

  21. DonS, your comment about this kind of selfless heroism not being lauded by the military is wrong on many levels. As one who had a member of my extended family awarded the Medal of Honor (posthumously of course) I am aware that more MoH are awarded for giving up one’s life than for taking lives. It is no accident that combat medics are awarded the MoH in disproportionate number to any other rate.

  22. “Many years have passed and still I wonder why —
    The worst of men must fight and the best of men must die”

    Sinking of the Reuben James/Kingston Trio

  23. I’m not dissing the Sgt. He’s my hero too. Cuz I’ve been where it was tough and did not do the right thing. It wasn’t like his situatlon, but failing to take up a picket sign and parade with my black brothers outside the Wachovia Bank in Raleigh in 1957.

    Just I wonder who knows who the heroes are here in America.
    I think the folks who go to work, get shit every day, bad wages, suffer it all their whole lives, just to bring up their kids.
    Those are also heroes.

    He made a decision, and is praised by us. So would many of you too, in similar situations. So is he a hero.? Depends on how you define it. Your choice.

    But it’s the utterings of hero worship which disturb me. Hero worship smacks of justifying the war. And all wars as well. We have become enamored with violence as seen throughout all our culture. I won’t list them, you know them better than I do.

    Is it better here? Not when I look at the largest PM newspaper. Looks like a toy and candy shop for adults—-so-called ones.

    And the lack of empathy for the millons we suppress and have suppressed and killed, again and again. And these children there. Saying we are bringing democracy for their sake is complete and utter BS.

    And what have we done about the MIC that Eisenhower warned us about? Nothing. So it will continue. I am sure, in spite of all talk about politicians and their next election horizons, that there are studies that result in plans for conquest including public consensus building before each war.

    Have you watched the helicopter butchery in Bagdad we can thank Wikileaks for revealing to us? Have you read a detailed account of My Lai?

    Tell me more about your hero worship then.

  24. RIP Sgt. Weichel. You represent the finest that our military has to offer. It would be nice if the little Afghan girl and her family attended his military burial, or at least got to know his family. I am reminded of this story about a little girl who saved her sister from a truck and lost a leg.

  25. Otteray Scribe, thanks for questioning and clarifying. My reference, somewhat global and sloppy, should have been more clearly expressed to refer to that “heroism” which reinforces the rather mindless invocation of “our team” vs “the enemy”, not the genuine selflessness you cite. I am aware,and I believe I am correct that a number of pacifists have, at least in the past, served as medics.

    But I was never in the military, in fact fought the draft (matter of fact, not necessarily pride), so perhaps I’m not a good reporter.

  26. “Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called all Americans “Demons”

    This passing comment by Professor Turley rather detracts from his otherwise appropriate praise of the self-sacrificing American serviceman. What purpose did Professor Turley have in mind by including it?

    Consider what would have happened had this one soldier not acted as he did. Obviously, another soldier barreling down the road in his enormous armored vehicle would have run over the little girl and just kept on going. So it looks to me like one American soldier saved a little Afghan girl that another American soldier would have killed without batting an eyelash. So now one of our heroes has saved an Afghan girl from one of our own demons. Without the American demon, of course, the American hero might have gone on to live a long and unheroic life. And, by the way, Professor Turley does not say what happened, if anything, to the American demon for running over and killing a fellow soldier.

    Something else Professor Turley might wish to contemplate, from a former (and unheroic) crusader for Goodness and Democracy (abroad):

    The Terrible Worm in His Iron Cocoon

    The terrible worm in his iron cocoon:
    The knight in his armor enclosed,
    Has gone off again on a global Crusade
    Which has left his own country exposed.

    His lines of supply girdle heaven and earth;
    Expenses grow terribly huge;
    While folks back at home find themselves unemployed,
    Yet they shrug, after them the deluge.

    Or so they suppose as the flood of lost jobs
    Washes over their living room floors,
    While off in Iraq, and Afghanistan, too,
    Their troops break in through the front doors,

    Then haul off the males in the household to jail
    For “being of age” to resist:
    A “crime,” we insist, ‘cause our saying makes “law,”
    Enforced by the gun and the fist.

    The troop in his tank behind sunglasses blank,
    In his man-from-mars uniform finds,
    That grabbing the native oppressed by the balls
    Beats winning their hearts and their minds.

    Now bankruptcy rules in the land of the fools
    Where the terrible worms got their start
    Then charged off to do what the world would soon rue
    As not worth the tiniest fart.

    Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller, Copyright 2009

  27. “We have shot an amazing number of people at checkpoints who really posed no threat to our forces.” — former American General Stanley McChrystal.

    Sounds pretty demonic to me. Why did no American hero intervene to stop this homicidal insanity? Have we so few of them?

    Had only more American heroes somehow saved more Afghans from more American demons, then perhaps President Karzai would not have such unkind things to say about Americans. Of course, without certifiable American demons like Deputy Dubya Bush and Dick Cheney, Hamid Karzai would still find himself employed as an oil company consultant, and not “The Mayor of Kabul.” He will last as “President” only as long as his patron American demons do.

    Now, back to our regularly scheduled Daily Boastful Body Count. So uplifting. So heroic. So many “suspected” of so much stuff. Nothing in the slightest “demonic” about it.

  28. Gene H:

    if and when you have children you will understand why the man did what he did and why he shouldnt have.

    If he had done this on the streets of Dallas, TX no one would be making much out of it. It would be a story in the local paper, maybe not even page 1 and the local nightly news would spend 60 seconds on the event.

    http://www.katu.com/news/local/51101557.html?tab=video&c=y

    here is another example of bravery, how come this didnt get any attention?
    In fact you can find hundreds of these examples. Maybe you have an agenda but like to do it so you can claim no foul.

    you are full of BS.

  29. Bron,

    In this matter…. You’re full of shit….. A man, person gave up his life to save a child…. If you have an issue with that, you need to reevaluate your priorities….. If feel for the people that call you family……

  30. Bron, Michael, Id707, you can respect, even admire Sgt. Weichel’s selfless impulse without it condoning the evil you write about; without it diminishing the heroism of Mr. Heck or the dozens, perhaps hundreds of selfless actors that act daily. I weep for them all when I read about them, it doesn’t alter my horror or hatred- hatred- of the Abu Ghraib torturers or long-distance killers in safe bunkers killing children with drones, reducing lives and deaths to no more than a video game. It strengthens it if anything but that’s for a different thread, a more appropriate compartment.

    C’mon guys, credit and compassion where it’s due. Can we not find some shared humanity in one little detail of the larger, horrific picture without all of the tainted baggage? For just a minute or two?

  31. Bron,

    I’m not responsible for the priorities of the local and/or national media.

    I am, however, responsible for my own choices such as the choice to recognize heroism when and where I see it and to have empathy and compassion for my fellow beings.

    Just like you’re responsible for your choice to be an Objectivist – worshiping your own ego and thinking selfishness is a virtue – and the ridiculous statements that your operational principles cause to spew from your mouth such as the one above where you minimized a heroic action, the value of a little girl’s life and the memory of Sgt. Dennis Weichel.

    When I’ve got children?

    I’m going to teach them to be exactly not like you.

    That’s what I understand.

  32. “Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, gave the world a measure of the bravery and humanity of our soldiers serving abroad this week.”

    Correction: Sgt. Dennis Weichel, gave the world a measure of the bravery and humanity of one of our soldiers [occupying a foreign country] this week. Taking nothing away from his personal example, but what one can surmise about the attitudes and behavior of the rest of our imperial legionary forces remains a difficult, if not impossible, endeavor.

    In Vietnam, at this stage of the desultory withdrawal (in which I served eighteen months), we had many instances of mutiny, if not outright “fragging,” of ignorant, gung-ho officers by their bitter, demoralized troops. Not for no reason did current Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, require that troops (I mean, heroes) wishing to hear his address first unload their weapons. Someone up the food chain has gotten the message that the usual unraveling has begun in earnest — even among the “heroes.”

    Yes, many Americans wish desperately to believe that we have really killed all those people and made their miserable lives even more miserable for their own good and that therefore, our victims should feel nothing but gratitude and a passive desire to let us dictate their lives to them. I chalk up Professor Turley to this category of knee-jerk nationalists who will snatch at any straw of “good news” — in this case, the noble death of a hero — because, unfortunately, he has nothing much else but the endless body counts with which to estimate our “success” and “progress” after almost a decade of failure at nearly every level of policy.

    As we used to say in Uncle Sam’s Canoe Club (a.k.a., the United States Navy): “One ‘aw-shit’ wipes out ten ‘atta-boys.'” And here we have only one ‘atta-boy.’ Even nine more won’t make up for the next ‘aw-shit’ when another paranoid truck driver or mercenary SUV privateer wipes out another carload full of Afghans on his speeding way from nowhere to nowhere else with nothing in between worth doing.

    Way past time for the demons to leave Afghanistan. Like, yesterday. Nowhere near enough heroes to make any difference.

  33. Gene H:

    With you as a father they will probably end up in prison or on drugs, I suggest you dont reproduce for the sake of the unborn.

  34. You know bron, you remind of those folks that were FORCED To fight another WAR that was not of their choosing….. Do you recall a thing called Vietnam where returning soldiers were rejected by people like you and I have even heard that they were spit upon….. I think you’re spitting on these GIs……

  35. Lottakatz:

    As much as I admire and enjoy the Sweeny Todd avatar, I insist on keeping things in perspective — even personal heroism. I do not doubt the authenticity of this particular story — even given the contrived propaganda tales of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman — nor do I wish to cast aspersions upon the memory of the too-soon departed. Nonetheless, Professor Turley attempted to use this individual case in a way that I found objectionable: namely, to get in a dig at our Afghan puppet, Hamid Karzai. We have placed this hapless man in an impossible situation. We do whatever we want in his country, irrespective of anything he may say about it, and then we complain.if he identifies, for even an instant, with what his countrymen actually feel about our invasion and occupation of their country. Had Professor Turley merely recounted an uplifting example without trying to make personal political hay out of it, I would not have felt it necessary to comment as I have.

    I guess I just can’t stomach the “hiding behind the troops” or “waving the bloody shirt” crap that I keep hearing from so many of my fellow citizens — especially the legions of them who never served in one of these clueless crusades. When we get to the point of insisting that “We had to destroy the village in order to save it,” then all sanity has fled. I said way back at the start of this disaster — in the company of millions of others — that nothing but needless death and disaster would come of it. But the Stud Hamster from Texas had a “gut” and a voice from “a higher father” that told him to light the world on fire. And most of my countrymen went along without a whimper. As New York Times pundit Thomas Friedman blithely put it: “We had to hit somebody. … because we could.” It didn’t matter whom. And there you have the truth of it.

    Too bad for all the dead people. Too bad for the sergeant and his family. But what did anyone with an ounce of worthwhile life experience expect? You can’t do a wrong thing the right way. I suspect that more heroes will die in Afghanistan, most of them barely armed Afghans resisting an enormous foreign military occupation. Who reports on their courage and self-sacrifice? Any reporter who even tries that will find themselves imprisoned, if not drone-murdered, as a “terrorist facilitator.”

    Again, Professor Turley attempted to use an unfortunate death to make a petty point. I called him on it. I think I’ve explained why.

  36. Lottakatz: “Can we not find some shared humanity in one little detail of the larger, horrific picture without all of the tainted baggage? For just a minute or two?”

    Again, I would concur except that Professor Turley could not resist attempting to exploit our normal emotional sympathies in order to score a point in his vendetta against Hamid Karzai, who called some of our vaunted Visigoths “demons” for the many demonic things they have done in Afghanistan over the past decade. Professor Turley found President Karzai’s language offensive. President Karzai found America’s blundering belligerency offensive. I find Professor Turley’s own use of “tainted baggage” inappropriate in this context and reserve the right to say so.

    If anything, as I’ve pointed out above, not only did Sergeant Weichel save a little Afghan girl from getting run over, but he also saved one of his fellow soldiers from giving Hamid Karzai yet another horrendous example of American demons at work running down Afghan citizens on a regular basis. What Professor Turley would have had to say about Karzai’s choice of language in that circumstance, I will not venture to guess. Personally, I find Professor Turley’s hyper-sensitivity to aggrieved language — especially when understandable — both self-serving and unpersuasive.

    So, good for the double-hero. He saved not only one little Afghan life, but probably a few others, American and Afghan, who would have had to pay the price for the inevitable revenge exacted upon anyone associated with the ongoing deaths of innocent Afghan family members by the American military, NATO military, privateer mercenaries, and crony-corporate camp followers.

    As for the “minute or two” of patient forbearance in respect for the needlessly dead, I ran out of that a long time ago. And just the other day, when I thought that perhaps a shred of learning might have taken place somewhere in the American government, I read where President Obama has begun hawking a new book on “foreign policy” by one of America’s stupidest neo-con chickenhawks, Fred Kagan; he of the infamous American Enterprise Institute, wrong about practically everything. Look for more sergeants dying needlessly and pointlessly real soon now. Patience, my aching ass.

  37. Elaine,

    It’s about what I expect out of someone of Bron’s character (or lack thereof). He’s already demonstrated how little he valued the life of both the Sergeant, the little girl he saved or the recognize the humanity of the Sergeant’s actions or value his memory in the eyes of his family. That he doesn’t value the lives of anyone other than himself is simply par for the Objectivist course and a perfect illustration of why he and his chosen operational principles are ethically bankrupt and generally reprehensible. Mean and the simple rationalization of being mean because it allegedly gets you what you want is what Objectivism is all about once you dispense with the solipsistic window dressing and literary pretension. It’s the pseudo-philosophy of choice for sociopaths and the emotionally stunted for that very reason.

    And what pete said.

  38. Agree raff. I understand Micheal’s bitterness and anger, but there is a time and place for everything. This ain’t it.

  39. @MIchael Murray

    1. Do the doctors in Taiwan make a killing like the specialists here?

    2.”In Vietnam, at this stage of the desultory withdrawal (in which I served eighteen months), we had many instances of mutiny, if not outright “fragging,” of ignorant, gung-ho officers by their bitter, demoralized troops. Not for no reason did current Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, require that troops (I mean, heroes) wishing to hear his address first unload their weapons. Someone up the food chain has gotten the message that the usual unraveling has begun in earnest — even among the “heroes.””

    The troops are under a lot of pressure. He may just be wary of someone who is on the very edge and something he says will push them over. I do respect your opinion and you clearly do mark Sgt. Weichel as hero.

    3. “Yes, many Americans wish desperately to believe that we have really killed all those people and made their miserable lives even more miserable for their own good and that therefore, our victims should feel nothing but gratitude and a passive desire to let us dictate their lives to them. I chalk up Professor Turley to this category of knee-jerk nationalists who will snatch at any straw of “good news” — in this case, the noble death of a hero — because, unfortunately, he has nothing much else but the endless body counts with which to estimate our “success” and “progress” after almost a decade of failure at nearly every level of policy.”

    Um…the Prof clearly rejects the wars and the billions being spent on them. I highly doubt that he is knee-jerking anything. Also, just throwing this out there, the civilians seem not all that unhappy to have Americans there especially in Iraq where Saddam treated anyone he didn’t like sadistically. There was that story of a guy who lived in a wall for like a decade. Also, I would like to think that our incursions in the Middle East has triggered the Arab Spring, though I cannot tell whether that is good or bad.

    As for the troops at checkpoints many of them have been killed by suicide bombers. As I stated before, the other team does not play fair. They use women, medical convoys etc to bomb our boys. I do not condone the shooting of innocent civilians, but if it is you and a potential bomb coming your way what would you do? If you shout warnings in Arabic and they still keep on coming, what should be done?

  40. Commoner:

    Thank you for the response, I’ll skip the Taiwanese doctors — good ones — for a later date. The currently devolving debacle in Afghanistan will more than do for the present.

    I’ll try to do this in segments, since each point I want to make will require some elaboration. Taking your last point first, I can only say that before I deployed to Vietnam, I had eight months of intensive language study, along with eleven weeks of counter-insurgency training. We had our heads filled with all sorts of propaganda about little Vietnamese kids with bombs strapped to themselves by their mothers, just to kill us. Once in Vietnam, however, I only ran into hordes of street-urchin beggars offering to sell me a bag of peanuts while their cute little friends deftly sliced open my pants pockets looking for my wallet (which, fortunately, I kept inside my shirt). Mostly, the Vietnamese just wanted us to leave. Which we did. Everyone — them and us — started getting better right away.

    In today’s “professional” military, our soldiers and marines deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan have hardly any foreign language training whatsoever, since they operate almost exclusively within their own American units for lack of trust and confidence in the local forces they ostensibly have come to “help.” Consequently, our troops for the most part speak only English — or what passes for that in the military — and haven’t the slightest understanding of which of many languages the local people speak. So after reading of General McChrystal’s up-front admission that “we’ve shot an amazing number of people who posed no threat to our forces,” I thought back on my own experiences in Vietnam and composed:

    “Thanks for Nothing”

    Benevolent invader of my land
    How can I thank you for the helping hand?
    Why, had you not come here with awe and shock,
    Reducing my poor home to piles of rock,
    I might have raised my children safe and sound,
    But, thanks to you, I’ve laid them in the ground.

    A wife I had, once too, but now no more.
    She died one day while driving to the store.
    Some nervous mercenaries that you hired
    Screamed something at her once, then aimed and fired.
    The bullet-riddled windshield told the tale:
    That “freed” of life, our women need no veil.

    Your generals have come so many times,
    Yet never have to answer for their crimes.
    Instead, promotion weighs them down with stars
    But never, like enlisted men, the scars
    Resulting from the bungling and sheer waste
    Of thinking last but shooting first in haste.

    On nine-eleven, two-thousand-and-one
    You got a taste of what you’ve often done
    To countries that had never caused you harm
    Yet still, too late, you sounded the alarm
    And whipped yourself into a lather thick
    So you could hurt yourself with your own stick.

    Three thousand on that fateful day you lost.
    Five thousand more you’ve added to the cost
    Since then, which only proves that there or here
    You act the same: in folly, rage, and fear.
    In time, you’ll go back home to where you’re from,
    To fight among yourselves, the deaf and dumb.

    Too bad for all the carnage that you’ve caused
    Who never thought or for a minute paused
    Before afflicting us with your disease:
    A plague of bankrupt bullies, fascist fleas,
    Who, both hands outward stretched to beg a loan,
    Continue “helping” us to shrink and groan.

    You talk to pat yourselves upon the back.
    Your actions only scream of what you lack:
    The insight and intelligence to see
    How much you’ve harmed yourself as well as me.
    But just the same I’ll thank you to go home
    Before you earn the fate that toppled Rome.

    Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller, Copyright 2009

    Next up: Why won’t the unarmed “fight fair”?

  41. Commoner:

    In another of the points you raised, you stated that our impoverished and vastly outgunned adversaries — “freedom fighters,” in their own eyes — refuse to “fight fair” against the world’s most expensive and lavishly equipped military and profiteering mercenary adjunct forces. The British army and their Hessian mercenaries used to complain about that same “unfairness” when the colonial Americans refused to assemble in neat formations so that the British could easily mow them down in industrial-strength numbers. Technically, people engaged in real, life-or-death warfare inevitably resort to “asymmetrical” tactics: meaning that if you can cheaply and effectively kill the foreign invader with some AK-47s and left-over artillery shells cobbled together with a little improvisation, then you do that. This has proved a winning strategy for several impoverished countries that America has tried to overwhelm with vast, indiscriminate firepower over the past half century. Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. Same old same old. Those with next to nothing fight with what little they have. And if they have nowhere to go, they stay and fight until the invader limps off to lick his wounds and contemplate national bankruptcy. Why Americans refuse to learn this lesson — despite repeated instruction by victorious “dead-enders” (Rumsfeld) “in their last throes” (Cheney) has to say something about national learning impairment among American political, military, and media “elites.”

    In short, the pajama-clad peasants and sandal-shod poppy farmers who keep whipping our fat asses with little or nothing continue to do so because (1) they have no other choice, and (2) “unfairness” works for them. If only they would just lay down and die!

    We really ought to mind our own business and boot our own corrupt and incompetent “elites” out of their offices.

    “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.”

    So:

    With their tails tucked proudly ‘tween their legs,
    Advancing towards the exit march the dregs
    Of Empire, whose retreat this question begs:
    “No promised omelet? Just the broken eggs?”

    Surely some heroes in there somewhere and occasionally, but for the most part, just another long, drawn-out, pathetic attempt at “face saving” by the Fig Leaf Contingent and Buy Time Brigade. As T. S. Elliot wrote a long time ago in The Hollow Men:

    “This is the way the world ends,
    Not with a bang, but a whimper.”

    I know bangs and whimpers when I hear them — and I know the difference. Honoring the dead instead of hanging those who got them killed pretty much covers the options that Americans seem content to accept. Momentarily consoling, perhaps; but obviously ineffective at preventing the unnecessary recurrence of yet more heroic death in service to vicious, venal vainglory.

  42. Bron correctly said that the press uses this to support staying in the war, while the daily sacrifices of heros at home are ignored—-for the simple paraphrase Bron.

    Similarly MM used his elequence in the service of after departure; and not at the rate so far paid.
    The rep folks would have to be 50-50. Half Iranian, half Pakistanis.
    We would only have to be protected if we, the demons tried.

    The true demons are those who sit on corporate MIC boards JCS, DoD, etc. and steer us to eternal wars.
    The only good thing I can see is the fact that the steerers still see the need of steering us with such headlines about heroes. Woe the day when they stop.

    Just realize that every tug at your heart strings results in a melody they love to hear. And when it is played by millions it reminds of the dollars rolling into their coffers. It’s all a game, an illusion game.
    Listen to MM’s prose, he’s obviously been there with his eyes open and can compare his time with this hero’s time, both at the front and here.

    Thanks MM.

    I hope Rafflaw (sorry I need a name, yours will do) stops his hero worship long enough to fully realize he has been duped, a patsy in the latest move in controlling the American people, when we are tiring and want to get out now, not later.

    As for Panetta’s order: Would that have not been a scene almost in parallel to 2,600 years ago when Alexander’s troops forced him to halt and return home when they tired of war. Can’t you see it? P. and the brass bleeding on the podium. Truly a historical event. Which nation would we have attacked as a scapegoat for that? What new laws would increase their control of us? Any suggestions.

    Historic. truly—-not mediaspeak meant.

  43. Otteray Scribe,

    On the contrary, this is JUST the right time for this discussion, before this little propaganda playlet in spe by Obama’s psy-op corp has succeeded.

    Before it has been digested and become a part of our biases, our knee-jerk responses when they blow the next bugle-call.

    Forget for a moment the heroes of your family and your lineage.

    Just come to the surface from your reverie, and look, register the crimes against humanity we commit under the guise of protecting us and the world by fighting these terrorists.

    Every armed person is a terrorist. Shall we compare the numbers today to the those when we invaded. They are more today, aren’t they.

    We are not standing at attention at graveside, OS. To honor the Sgt is all the more reason to ask if his and other’s sacrifices are reasonable—-and that of those we are “saving” from the Talibans. I thought it was Al Quada we were fighting.

    I fear however it might be the graveside of american democracy if we do not act to end the MIC’s influence over our nation’s politics

  44. What I don’t understand is why a guy with three kids is even in Afganistan. Why are any of our military personnel in Afganistan? What’s the real reason other than war profits? This is an unjust war and because of that it will never benefit the majority, only the minorities fighting over the spoils of war; a war of unauthorized political force.

  45. Pretty powerful thread that cuts to a profoundly raw level.

    Two threads really, and little way to reconcile which is more germane, those who honor the sacrifice, or those who note the rot in which it is, today and historically, encased?

    I guess my question, without trying to ascribe moral superiority or depravity to anyone, might be: could the emotional honesty, or at least expression, have been achieved without the clash?

    While one cannot but resonate to the act of human sacrifice in this isolated instance — appropriately so — so also has the increasingly depraved war machine not hesitated to use any tactic, up to and including air brushing, if not downright falsifying, it’s ugly footprint from Vietnam to the present.

  46. Idealist,
    When I commend and honor the self sacrifice of Sgt. Weichel, I am not calling for or encouraging continued warfare in Afghanistan or anywhere else. To say otherwise is just a bald faced slur. No one wants us out of Afghanistan completely out of Iraq more than myself and I have been consistent on that from day one. To call honoring those that do sacrifice their lives for others, hero worship is denigrating to the dead and to the living.
    MM,
    The Marines in Afghanistan do receive language training and training on the customs of the people in Afghanistan and they also have interpreters with them on most missions. The Marines imbedded within ANA units utilize the language of the ANA soldiers and their training to understand what is being said.

  47. DonS
    Have you read Daniel Ellsberg’s book “Secrets”?

    There is the story of falsifying to Congress, to the press, to the publlic, as a conscious and persistent policy in the Pentagon. Ellsberg stood there on his first day as a DoD employee, an expert Rand consultant, but now working as special assistant to the DOD asst Sec responsible for pre-Tonkin gulf Vietnam ops and strategies. The first Ellsberg saw at 7 AM was the running messenger from the comm center with the Tonkin destroyer vessel reporting the attacks that were later re-evaluated as sonar operator human error. The cables came pouring in at 2 minute intervals, he took them on since his boss was sitting with McNamara.

    Results? The lie we were told of an unprovoked attack on a routine patrol on the high seas—–said LBJ. The lies continued, the whole time including Nixon’s time.
    Not a damn word of truth. And LBJ and others ignored the clear advice from the military, the politicians, etc:: “Get out now”, was unequivocal advice. Nothing can be gained. Except things that only LBJ knew of. None of his advisers since have been able to enlighten us, only speculations

    So read it if you want to know how America, or that part of it, functions—-or misfunctions is more correct.

  48. Gene H.1, March 30, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Oh yeah.

    Because the presumption is that this girl will grow up to be a victim
    ——————————-
    I’m not being objective….not by a long shot. The only people that get a leg up when a good man goes down are the cowards and the greedy boars. That families life just got unbelievably harder. This man was amazing to do what he did….but how about what the fuck were we doing there in the first place and what is it in people that allow children to run around combat zones gathering shells to survive in the first place?

    There is nothing objective in this scenario and no way to be objective. It is evil plain and simple. No amount of anything will be able to fix it or forego it’s impact. That’s all.

  49. I cannot believe the idocacy of the people condemning those that give up their own life to save another’s.

  50. Rafflaw,

    “I hope Rafflaw (sorry I need a name, yours will do) stops his hero worship long enough to fully realize he has been duped, a patsy in the latest move in controlling the American people, when we are tiring and want to get out now, not later.”

    “To say otherwise is just a bald faced slur.”

    I said, as you see: “sorry I need a name, yours will do”

    You assume too much from my words or didn’t read them well

    My apologies for using your name to give a face to this dupery.
    Glad to know of your position.

    BUT, I ALSO see them using of this hero, one I have acknowledge here, as a red herring to distract us from any remaining thought about the 16 massacred in Kandahar.

    Tired of war, says Obama, get charged up by our latest hero. They use him and they dupe the public.

    Undiluted anything is suspect in my eyes. Zealots of all kinds are creepy.
    Pro or con.

    How about you, Rafflaw?

  51. Gene H.1, March 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    Bron1, March 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    ———————————
    Bron stop being NASTY to Gene

    Gene stop being NASTY to Bron
    ———————————

    thankyou

  52. To all:

    Sacrifice, especially of the highest class, feels most bitter when it is done in the service of an unjust cause. Which prevents our usual rejoicing in the vindication of why we sacrifice.

    And THIS cause is to the detriment not only of those oppressed, but to us as responsible, and those of us who sacrifice in our defenxe.

    Hope you understand that I feel this loss deeply. But can not accept—not only this war—but what caused it. It is a lie, all of it.

  53. W=^..^

    “This man was amazing to do what he did….but how about what the fuck were we doing there in the first place and what is it in people that allow children to run around combat zones gathering shells to survive in the first place?”

    Three distinct issues.

    The first is an episode of extreme personal heroism and example of such behavior rarely occur under good circumstances.

    The second and third issues are encapsulated by the scenario in which the episode occurred: the broader scope of the Afghan War. What we are doing there is simply a political matter based in war profiteering – no and, ifs or buts about it. Afghanistan was involved in the 9/11 attacks and not even to the extent that the as yet unpunished Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11, but strategically speaking a long term occupation of Afghanistan was a losing proposition from the get-go unless you’re a military contractor. There is no way to hold Afghanistan. Period. The nature of the terrain and the indigenous culture make it a strategic impossibility. What we should have done with Afghanistan is simply this: bombed every training camp we could find and the villages that acted as their support networks and told the Afghans that if they ever trained personnel to attack U.S. targets again, we’d come back with nukes. And then left them to their Islamic hillbilly ways with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. I’d also have the willpower to uphold that threat. Then again, we should also have annexed Saudi Arabia or turned them into a parking lot for North Africa for their role in 9/11. Had I been in charge, the whole operation would have been over in 4 years tops and with the appropriate parties punished. Saddam would still be alive and Iraq would still be a secular bulwark against theocratic aggressors in the ME theater like Iraq. But then again, unlike Bush, I’m not in bed with the House of Saud.

    As to the third issue, it’s a war zone. Survival can mean hard choices. I’m pretty sure that most people would rather have an option – any option – other than sending their children out on an inherently ultra-hazardous activity in order to make enough money to feed the family. This situation was created by the same pols that created the situation the caused Sgt. Weichel to be there in the first place: domestic war profiteers and war criminals who didn’t give a rat’s ass about protecting American interests or lives as long as they could personally make some money.

    The vile acts of these criminals in no way (as you note) detract from the selflessly heroic act of Sgt. Weichel.

    “There is nothing objective in this scenario and no way to be objective.”

    I disagree . . . and so do you whether you realize it or not. You agree because your statement “[t]his man was amazing to do what he did” reveals that you objectively recognize the value of his actions separately from the situation in which it occurred. Perhaps you meant there is no way to be emotionally detached from this scenario? Which I will stipulate is difficult but not impossible.

    “It is evil plain and simple.”

    The situation is, sure, but the actions of Sgt. Weichel are anything but evil. And as I said, this is a situation not of his creation nor is it a creation of the little girl he saved. It’s a bad and evil situation. Acts of heroism rarely occur in any other environment though.

  54. Otteray Scribe1, March 30, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    Agree raff. I understand Micheal’s bitterness and anger, but there is a time and place for everything. This ain’t it.
    ————————————————-

    Yes it is. Yes it is! THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE! This is a blog…it is a successful blog because people come here to converse and exchange ideas about CURRENT EVENTS. Thank G*d it epitomizes the Constitutional right of freedom of expression. It is a Lighthouse in that respect. There is room for disagreement. Thank you Prof. Turley! [I have a feeling that he is healthy enough to be within earshot of even with those who disagree with him.]

    Show me a human being that can be completely separated from thier personal experiences and compassion and I’ll show you a hunk of scrap metal. Compassion is all encompassing…just because your experience colors a different part of an experience does not make the other party without compassion.

    I agree wth Mr. Murry, I hope that doesn’t open me up to an onslaught of nasty rhetoric aimed at my personal worth. If it does, then fuck you all and the hypocritical horses you rode in on!

  55. W=^..^

    As long as selfishness creates problems for the world, I see no need to be accommodating or cordial to the selfish.

    You bemoan the situation in Afghanistan?

    It was created by selfish people.

    ‘Nuff said.

  56. Woosty,

    I’m with ya on this. A difference in opinion is no excuse for an onslaught of nasty rhetoric aimed at anyone’s personal worth especially if that opinion has been expressed well and with sincerity.

    (except, maybe, in the case of … [sshh, I’m whispering so as not to wake the dragon] … anon)

  57. Woosty said:
    “what is it in people that allow children to run around combat zones gathering shells to survive in the first place?”

    Well, let me say that they are not going to retire to their ‘copters to fly to a warm meal and a warm sack, guarded by a perimiter. That meal costs on the average of USD 250. And we pay without complaint.

    The village Afghans instead are facing a total destruction of their own and their local economy. You can’t go to the market to sell and buy. There is no market any more. The motorcycles with bulging bags of casings comes once a week to collect and pay cash. How do you exist in a collapsed economy, when you don’t have the rice paddies of Vietnam to feed you for a year.

    Ask MM, He knows.

    Ellsberg was there, in the field with a CIA standard issue machine gun to locals in Laos, etc.
    Ellsberg was a hero long before he leaked the Pentagon Papers.
    He was a marine officer, infantry of course, and asked to be extended to be able to be with his battalion (G3 op off) on board the landing ships off the NA coast when an invasion was planned

    He was in Vietnam the first time before Kennedy came, and was chosen to brief JFK as he was a visiting senator then.

    He later left the Pentagon job to join the “Hearts n Minds” team at the Vietnam embassy. He became the embassy expert on field ops—simply because he was the only one who ventured into the field—thanks initially to contact with a former mil who specialized in running the roads in an ordinary Toyota truck to outposts normally visited only by heliicopter. Ellsberg followed US patrols, day and night, and went to the most low level ARVN posts to check on the validity of ARVN night patrols. The ARVN reports were lies. The American advisor, a major, knew and said that they were what was wanted up the chain at ARVN HQ. He left Vietnam jaundiced from paddy wading, in body but also in mind after seeing how the war was in reality.

    Read his book. It is essential to understanding the lies we were fed from 1946 and forward—without interruption.

    I’m sure the Sgt will excuse my using his thread. So that he may not have died in vain. due to these suckers who lie and lied to us.

  58. There was a great deal of wisdom wrapped up in one of Michael Murry’s single sentences … “You can’t do a wrong thing the right way.”

  59. Elaine:

    “Bron,

    That was a truly nasty thing to say to Gene.”

    Maybe you should review some of the very nasty things Gene has said about me and others for that matter. I havent seen you chastising Gene H nor did you condemn Buddha is Laughing, who was truly nasty to many people. His departure has increased the participation on this blog 100 fold.

    I guess your condemnation is only for people with whom you disagree.

  60. MM, Blousie, “There was a great deal of wisdom wrapped up in one of Michael Murry’s single sentences … “You can’t do a wrong thing the right way.””

    One could say that much of the political posturing and psychological warfare we are subjected to is intended to influence us to disregard this fundamental observation. Or the obverse. Or some variation . . .

    Anything but trying to speak the truth. Or are all of our so-called leaders so enveloped up in the fog of their own self-importance that they wouldn’t know an attempt at truth telling from intentional misleading — with the best intentions, of course.

    Why can’t ‘they’ admit they haven’t a clue, are truly fucked up and, in whatever vestige of conscience remains, ought to say so and quit. Instead of reinforcing this very sick, very dangerous morality play called . . . whatever you like

  61. Blouise and others,

    Seems like I started this break of mislead hero worship and started a thread about soul-searching of the root problems yesterday, March 30th. See below citation.

    My daring to buck you all and face a possible assault (and there were some) is now unnoticed in the round of self congratulatory comments, ended by Blouise. Wish I could have been included. Because the tide turned only when MM entered the fray. Congratulations, sir.

    No matter, I didn’t come here for praise, but the freedom to speak my mind where it might matter.
    But just to remind you all:

    idealist7071, March 30, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    I’m not dissing the Sgt. He’s my hero too. Cuz I’ve been where it was tough and did not do the right thing. It wasn’t like his situatlon, ……
    ……………….
    But it’s the utterings of hero worship which disturb me. Hero worship smacks of justifying the war. And all wars as well. We have become enamored with violence as seen throughout all our culture. I won’t list them, you know them better than I do.
    ……………….
    And the lack of empathy for the millons we suppress and have suppressed and killed, again and again. And these children there. Saying we are bringing democracy for their sake is complete and utter BS.
    ………………………..
    Have you watched the helicopter butchery in Bagdad we can thank Wikileaks for revealing to us? Have you read a detailed account of My Lai?
    ……………………………..
    Tell me more about your hero worship then.
    END CITATION

    I am glad to note the awakening here………….for the nonce. How long will it last?

  62. As long as selfishness creates problems for the world, I see no need to be accommodating or cordial to the selfish.
    ——————————————————-

    Gene, who gets to decide who is selfish and who isn’t? Let’s be real…in the world of ‘War’, it isn’t the selfish who pay the price. It is only honest and searching discourse that can prevent violence and the possible mistake of calling someone ‘selfish’, who may in fact be simply fighting to survive. That little girl who was picking up shells….must have been pretty damn selfish to not even notice a tank coming right at her….

  63. Woosty said:
    “—Yes it is. Yes it is! THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE!”

    Thanks for repeating my much earlier reply to OS. Glad you took it up.
    Your endorsing seems to have awakened others, where my same plea did not.

    Snark:
    Is it the use of capital letters or the reputation that counts? Smile!

  64. I disagree . . . and so do you whether you realize it or not. You agree because your statement “[t]his man was amazing to do what he did” reveals that you objectively recognize the value of his actions separately from the situation in which it occurred.
    ———————————————-
    Not objective at all. This man reminds me of people I would jst as soon have back.

    nuff said

  65. Used to have a boss that said many times there maybe 15 ways to do something’s, 12 of them right and three of them wrong, but you’re so stupid that you’d do the wrong things for the right reasons, but when I’m signing the damn check you’ll do it my way.

    RIP Sgt Weichel, you are a good man, regardless of the Rubicons that attack you.

  66. Bron,

    If you don’t like being called on being selfish, change your ways. Otherwise, suck it up. You made your choices in operational principles. You pay the costs. If people criticize your actions, maybe you should consider that the problem isn’t with them, but within your actions.

  67. Gene H,

    I can never expect to match you, but can inquire if there is a cure to be had.

    My writing more than 3 sentences takes an eternity. In the meanwhile others have addressed the point which motivates my comment.

    It feels so dumb to be saying ME TOO with 18 sentences much later..
    Removing the non-essentials can ónly be done after they are written.
    No time saved.

    Should I move to the future to see where you all will be going, so as to be prepared with my comment in time or what other advice do you have?

    (I really left myself open for anything at this point!)

  68. W=^..^

    Then I submit that subjective desires manifest in an objective-compatible observation. Just as there is the possibility of multiple true logical paths to an answer, there can be multiple true forms of observation underlying a true logic. A subjectively true observation can be an objectively true observation and vice versa.

  69. DonS,

    Have you seen “Game Change” on HBO? Talk about scary.

    Substitute almost any politician you can think of for John McCain in that movie and he/she would fit.

  70. id707,

    I know of no cure for that of which you speak. Writing with concision is a skill that can be learned, writing with speed is a skill that can be improved with practice but has a innate upper limit constrained by the way the writer thinks, but writing with speed and concision is something that seems to be an innate ability among the writers that I know. Consider the following parallels in music and literature: some composers and writers endlessly edit to get their final product – like Chopin or Safire – and some do all of that revision in their head before putting pen to paper and compose either final drafts or close to final drafts every time – like Mozart or Asimov.

    Practice? That is my best and only suggestion.

  71. Gene H:

    You really dont understand much do you.

    I am a father, I understand exactly what that man did and what it meant to him, I also understand why he did it; as a father you would try and move heaven and earth to protect the life of a child. I also know what it means to his children because I lost my father when I was 7 years old, in 1965.

    So please spare me your typical bullshit. You dont have a clue as is typical with you.

  72. idealist7071, March 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    ——————————————————-
    of course you were noticed, and impact obviously made. It is always hardest to be the ‘trailcutter’…. hopefully we have become more civilized and intelligent than when to kill the messenger was the only example that got result!

  73. Blouise, It is being said that Romney doesn’t want a game changer. The movie was quite good and much better than I expected. I tend to think Mcain was more detached from the process than the usual.

  74. So much praise and advice. A shame I had to get on my knees for it.
    But I am like a child and crave instant gratification.

    Someday I will grow up, but then all men are not aware of their needs to do so. And I said that.

    Gene H.
    Beautiful stuff about objective and subjective.
    But about writing. Some write with words, as I do, using the assocations, allusions, prosody, etc. Some perhaps with ideas, concepts, non-word-realized thoughts.
    Shakespeare, I feel, loved his phrases so well, he often would repeat them at least in 4 different ways.

    How well you evaded the core issue of lack of talent or brains as some call it.

    I enjoy my writing, but then I see MM’s and Gene’s and OS, and Woosty etc and am enthralled. Glad am not Swedish. I would eat my heart out instead as they do. I share others success, for I am human as they. We all seek inspiration perhaps. Ssshhhh. Be quiet, my parrot.

  75. Who is Blouise17 and who is Blouise?

    Because it was to me a new moniker name Blouise17 said I was an egomaniac. If it is AY behind another sockpuppet is OK with me.

    Egomania is my middle name. Self-centered is what my therapist says it is.
    A related condition?

    At any rate, self-centeredness leads in my case to judging other peoples actions always as a result of my actions. And assuming their thoughts in an interaction are centered on you.

    When in reality they are quite likely to be acting out of other reasons not at all related to you in any manner or form.

    Therapy confession for the day.

  76. Swarthmore Mom,

    Welcome. How are you?

    Since you were the first to defend me from AY’s bullying, I love you for that.
    .
    But since you said I’d gone over the line with my alleged anti-semitism re economic dominance (disregarding all else I written previously on judaism, etc.), I am still awaiting a response to my rebuttal/reply defending myself.

    Perhaps you and commoner left the field, but repeated challenges to him on other threads have gone unresponded to. Although he has not abandoned the blawg.

    You answer only for you. And you I respect, that’s why I ask so bluntly, wishing a rapprochement or closure with peace between us.

    How say you?

  77. Blouise,
    My Tucson contact said it was great, especially the Palin portrait. (That is the same movie?)
    But your angle of the commonality of politician characteristics is indeed intriguing.
    It is perhaps much more than a pastiche capitalizing on their names and the impending campaign finale.
    Thanks.

  78. Bron,

    Spin it all you like. An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy and in no way excuses your earlier clearly selfish statement. It’s your own Objectivist bullshit you stepped in. If you don’t like the smell, I suggest you reconsider your chosen operational principles. As to your implication that I don’t understand because I’m not a biological father? That you’d say anything at this point to salvage yourself from your self-inflicted wound does not surprise me at all. The bottom line is you minimized the actions of Sgt. Weichel while I did nothing of the sort. If you understood and practiced compassion, you’d have never thought to minimize the man’s sacrifice, the value of the life he saved, or the example he set for his family and others of good conscious simply because a selfless act is contrary to your Objectivist tenets. You can try to redeem yourself by whatever spin you’d like to try to apply, but some horse can’t be put back in the barn.

    ********

    W=^..^

    Agreed but be sure to differentiate between objectivism (small “o”, an empirical evidentiary practice to prefer quantifiable evidence) and Objectivism (big “O”, the ethically and psychologically bankrupt pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand that actively demonizes compassion). One is a useful tool, the other is rationalization for being a selfish prick or a sociopath.

  79. VoteVets asks Walsh to apologize

    By DAVID CATANESE |
    3/30/12 3:16 PM EDT

    VoteVets.org, the largest group of progressive veterans, is asking Rep. Joe Walsh for an apology following his comments to POLITICO about Tammy Duckworth’s military service.

    “Just when you think Congressman Joe Walsh couldn’t sink any lower, he insults the service and sacrifice of our Veterans, particularly one like Tammy who lost her limbs in the line of duty. Congressman Walsh owes Tammy Duckworth and all Veterans an apology for his outrageous disrespect for their service,” said VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran himself.

    When presented in a recent interview with the powerful biography Duckworth brings to the campaign, Walsh offered the following:

    “I have so much respect for what she did in the fact that she sacrificed her body for this country,” said Walsh, simultaneously lowering his voice as he leaned forward before pausing for dramatic effect. “Ehhh. Now let’s move on.”

    “What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh,” he continued. “She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat. David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel just picked her up and dropped her into this district.”

    Duckworth campaign manager Kaitlin Fahey also mentioned the remark in a release yesterday following the vote on the GOP budget.

    “Joe is being his usual inappropriate self. While he focuses on making disrespectful and outlandish comments in an effort to gain attention in the press, Tammy is focused on opposing initiatives to gut Medicare and meeting with residents of the 8th,” she said.
    Politico

  80. Gene H. said:
    “….the other is rationalization for being a selfish prick or a sociopath.”

    Or a rich man pissed off because he can’t get through the needle’s eye or was it to heaven he wanted to reach.

    Remarkable combinations of heat and light. Seem to remember it from another time.

  81. OT but on Afghanistan people who immigrate.

    My new Afghan helper was back again once today. She’s born in India, speaks Urdu. and Farsi, has a husband who is from Kandahar, who speaks Pashtu, and they probably speak Swedish together. She met him on Facebook through a friend, and was curious how I and my wife met in Dinosaur times. An outdoor public dance, that was a peculiar idea, she thought.
    She and her family moved to Iran and it was then she visited grandparents and uncles etc in Herat.
    They came here to Sweden, having won the lottery of the UN quota immigrant list to Sweden. Coulda been America=greater happiness.

    She too, like all young people wants to visit America.

    So they’re not all terrorists or hardline religious extremists (I know that’s only a joke???). So if you should come to Sweden and see a dark-haired person, don’t be afraid.

    OT If she’s blonde and has dark hair roots, ask if she’s from Rumania. If she says yes, then you can ask the next obvious question.

  82. Bron,

    I don’t read every post and every comment at the Turley Blawg–nor do I comment on every thread. I thought what you said to Gene was very personal and truly nasty. I expressed my feelings. Do you think what you said to Gene was mean?

  83. Is that the best you’ve got, Bron?

    You saying I’m wrong is not the same thing as proving I’m wrong. You say I’m wrong all the time. You’ve never proven me wrong. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I don’t care if you think I’m wrong. Thinking isn’t exactly your proven strong suit. If you can prove me wrong? Have at it. The bottom line is that you took a big ol’ Objectivist dump and then promptly stepped in it. If you don’t like that I pointed that out? I suggest you learn to watch your step.

  84. I really couldn’t let this one pass. The sheer, mindless malevolence arising from its obtuse refusal to acknowledge reality requires debunking. From commenter Gene H:

    “What we should have done with Afghanistan is simply this: bombed every training camp we could find and the villages that acted as their support networks and told the Afghans that if they ever trained personnel to attack U.S. targets again, we’d come back with nukes. And then left them to their Islamic hillbilly ways with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.”

    First off: the 9/11 hijackers came almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia — the home, heart, soul, and bankroller of Islamic Jihadism. Not a one of the 9/11 hijackers came from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Second: the operational planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Hamburg, Germany, and could have taken place anywhere on earth where people can think. An Egyptian engineer did the calculations concluding that the explosive energy of a plane full of high octane fuel could, in effect, function as a potent bomb.

    Third: learning how to fly an American commercial jet airliner, the one critical skill without which the entire enterprise would never — no pun intended — have gotten off the ground, took place at American flight simulator schools in America. The Saudi terrorists, in other words, trained to attack America in America.

    Fourth: the Saudi terrorists did not employ “weapons of mass destruction” in attacking America. They found American stuff in America and attacked America with its own stuff. They took a lesson from American terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who created a bomb out of a truck full of fertilizer and brought down an American building with it.

    Therefore, according to Gene H, America should nuke Germany and Florida for “allowing” the training required to attack American targets to occur on German and American territory, since the entire “logic” of Gene H’s atavistic revenge fantasy hinges on the location of thinking and training, no matter that the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001, a daring stunt carried out almost exclusively by our “stalwart ally” Saudi Arabia in retaliation for American presidents stationing infidel American troops on Saudi Arabian soil within infecting distance of Mecca, the holiest of Islamic shrines.

    As for the “training camps” in Afghanistan, America and Saudi Arabia created them for use in fighting a proxy war against the former Soviet Union. America should therefore nuke itself and Saudi Arabia for midwifing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

    Several problems with nukes, though: they tend to create radioactive fallout that spreads via wind currents to neighboring countries — even far away countries like the United States. The United States government might not mind raining radioactivity on its own citizens, but other countries — some of them with nukes of their own — most assuredly would mind getting a dose of cancer-causing fallout, to the point of taking joint action in self-defense against the United States for its mindless and terrifying stupidity.

    Worst of all: those persons alive and awake during the First Gulf Battle of 1991-92 can recall seeing columns of greasy black smoke arising from Kuwaiti oil fields set ablaze — with very small explosives — by Saddam Hussein’s retreating army. Now imagine a series of thermonuclear explosions in the same area — assuming they even hit the intended target — that setsan underground sea of oil on fire for decades. Sayonara atmosphere, sunlight, crops, food, animal and human life — everything gone in an instant of venal vainglorious madness.

    So I say to you, Gene H, with all earnestness and care for my choice of language, that you ought to give the “nuke ’em” jive a rest. You do not seem to have enough credible historical information at your disposal, your “logical” associations reveal glaring gaps and leaps from one untenable assumption to another, and you give no sign of ever having contemplated the dire and irreversible consequences of the madness you advocate. America has already pounded Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to a bloody pulp for going on twenty years, beginning with President George the First. That the bloody pulp has somehow emerged victorious over the American pounding enrages and frustrates your vicarious homicidal proclivities, so that you now can do nothing but howl for even more draconian pounding.

    Give it up. Spastic and incoherent American violence has lost again, as it should have. We lost the day we started this insanity. We win the day we stop it. Just stop it. The sooner safe-at-home Americans stop treating war-somewhere-else as “reality” TV entertainment, the sooner America and its many victims will begin the necessary healing. It seems to me that Americans ought to take the occasion of Sergeant Weichel’s death as an opportune moment to reflect on ceasing what America never should have begun.

  85. Elaine:

    Do you think what he has called me and others is wrong? I never saw you chastise Gene or Buddha is Laughing when they were saying much worse things to many of us.

  86. Years ago, I wrote this for therapy, for myself and others. Perhaps a little of it applies to Sergeant Weichel, as well.

    Soldier’s Soldier

    Scapegoat of the king’s ambition
    Hostage to the prince’s crime
    Sent upon a madman’s errand
    Soldier of another time

    Sworn to do as he is bidden
    Not to think of why he came
    From himself his purpose hidden
    Soldier by another name

    Searching for a mystic evil
    Ever just a war away
    Always beaten, not defeated
    Back to fight another day

    Battles always won, but cheated
    Of the promised victory
    Never lost but just depleted
    Army of our history

    Kill the chicken; scare the monkey
    Centipede is dead, not stiff
    Off to far Cathay he marches
    Soldier diving off a cliff

    War not done but just abated
    Peace the only thing to fear
    Power’s hunger never sated
    Soldier’s orders never clear

    Dragon’s teeth by Cadmus planted
    Sprung from battle’s plain full grown
    Men who kill them all if doubtful
    Heathen gods will know their own

    Burn the village, clear the jungle
    Save them from themselves at least
    Make excuses for the bungle
    Soldier then becomes the beast

    Wounds still fresh and redly bleeding
    Bound up with a filthy rag
    Something shapeless once a husband
    Stuffed into a plastic bag

    Squatting in the dusty swelter
    Widowed woman once a wife
    Never more to know the shelter
    Of a tranquil married life

    Head thrown back in boundless grieving
    Mouth agape with soundless woes
    Tears and snot now glisten, mingling
    Coursing down from eyes and nose

    Anguished face a tangled curtain
    Clotted, matted, raven hair
    Almond eyes with sight uncertain
    Weeping pools of deep despair

    Do not knock this war we’re having
    It’s the only one we’ve got
    “Better Dead than Red” we tell them
    Mouthing slogans; talking rot

    Fight them over there they tell us
    Rather that than fight them here
    Just invent some casus bellus
    Danger’s best that’s never near

    Ozymandias’ sneering statue
    Crumbled in the desert bare:
    Look upon my works, you mighty
    See their ruin and take care

    Told to teach and be creative
    Soldier ignorant and young
    Learned instead and then went native
    Speaking now an ancient tongue

    Only they will now receive him
    Who see not his bloodstained hand
    None will hear for he can’t speak it
    Stranger to his own lost land

    Bringing with him what he carried
    Losing only what he bought
    To the cause no longer married
    Soldier doing what he ought

    Shipped away like so much baggage
    Not to choose the things he’s done
    Often bad and sometimes better
    Soldier not the only one

    Now he comes home like the others
    Breathless lips and eyes shut fast
    Lain to sleep beside his brothers
    Soldier’s soldier to the last

    Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller, Copyright 2005

  87. Michael Murray:

    “It seems to me that Americans ought to take the occasion of Sergeant Weichel’s death as an opportune moment to reflect on ceasing what America never should have begun.”

    Yes we should. It is way past time for selfless sacrifice to stop.

  88. MM,

    I really couldn’t let this one pass. The sheer, mindless malevolence arising from its obtuse refusal to acknowledge reality requires debunking. From commenter Gene H:

    “What we should have done with Afghanistan is simply this: bombed every training camp we could find and the villages that acted as their support networks and told the Afghans that if they ever trained personnel to attack U.S. targets again, we’d come back with nukes. And then left them to their Islamic hillbilly ways with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.”

    First, you cannot “debunk” an alternate strategy. You can criticize it, but you can’t debunk it. But first, you must understand it to criticize it. And understanding doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

    “First off: the 9/11 hijackers came almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia — the home, heart, soul, and bankroller of Islamic Jihadism. Not a one of the 9/11 hijackers came from either Iraq or Afghanistan.”

    I didn’t mention Iraq other than to say I’d have left them alone as they did not attack us. However, a great many of the Saudis involved did receive their training in camps in Afghanistan.

    “Second: the operational planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Hamburg, Germany, and could have taken place anywhere on earth where people can think. An Egyptian engineer did the calculations concluding that the explosive energy of a plane full of high octane fuel could, in effect, function as a potent bomb.”

    So? The operations were funded with Saudi money. I don’t care where they were planned. Where the money came from and where the bulk of the training took place is relevant though. Again: Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

    “Third: learning how to fly an American commercial jet airliner, the one critical skill without which the entire enterprise would never — no pun intended — have gotten off the ground, took place at American flight simulator schools in America. The Saudi terrorists, in other words, trained to attack America in America.”

    Some of the training did occur here. So what? Again, other than pointing to an area where our domestic LE failed – namely the FBI – to pay attention to reports field agents were submitting, you point to nothing of substance and are making a straw man argument combined with an argumentum ad absurdum (which you deploy poorly).

    “Fourth: the Saudi terrorists did not employ “weapons of mass destruction” in attacking America. They found American stuff in America and attacked America with its own stuff. They took a lesson from American terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who created a bomb out of a truck full of fertilizer and brought down an American building with it.”

    Straw man much? I didn’t mention WMD’s other than after kicking the shit out Afghanistan and leaving we should have told them next time we have to get off the porch, we’re going to vaporize you.

    “Therefore, according to Gene H, America should nuke Germany and Florida for “allowing” the training required to attack American targets to occur on German and American territory, since the entire “logic” of Gene H’s atavistic revenge fantasy hinges on the location of thinking and training, no matter that the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/2001, a daring stunt carried out almost exclusively by our “stalwart ally” Saudi Arabia in retaliation for American presidents stationing infidel American troops on Saudi Arabian soil within infecting distance of Mecca, the holiest of Islamic shrines.”

    You don’t actually read before you write, do you? I never said anything about attacking Germany or Florida, but you feel free to make up all the shit you like. And if you’ve got a problem with American troops being deployed in Saudi Arabia? Guess who invited them? The House of Saud. Go bark up another tree.

    “As for the “training camps” in Afghanistan, America and Saudi Arabia created them for use in fighting a proxy war against the former Soviet Union. America should therefore nuke itself and Saudi Arabia for midwifing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.”

    Again, straw man much?

    “Several problems with nukes, though: they tend to create radioactive fallout that spreads via wind currents to neighboring countries — even far away countries like the United States. The United States government might not mind raining radioactivity on its own citizens, but other countries — some of them with nukes of their own — most assuredly would mind getting a dose of cancer-causing fallout, to the point of taking joint action in self-defense against the United States for its mindless and terrifying stupidity.”

    Apparently you don’t understand the word “threat” or “deterrent” or that those strategies are useless without the willingness to back them up.

    “Worst of all: those persons alive and awake during the First Gulf Battle of 1991-92 can recall seeing columns of greasy black smoke arising from Kuwaiti oil fields set ablaze — with very small explosives — by Saddam Hussein’s retreating army. Now imagine a series of thermonuclear explosions in the same area — assuming they even hit the intended target — that setsan underground sea of oil on fire for decades. Sayonara atmosphere, sunlight, crops, food, animal and human life — everything gone in an instant of venal vainglorious madness.”

    Again, straw man much? My but you’re a tedious self-righteous twit.

    “So I say to you, Gene H, with all earnestness and care for my choice of language, that you ought to give the “nuke ‘em” jive a rest. You do not seem to have enough credible historical information at your disposal, your “logical” associations reveal glaring gaps and leaps from one untenable assumption to another, and you give no sign of ever having contemplated the dire and irreversible consequences of the madness you advocate. America has already pounded Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to a bloody pulp for going on twenty years, beginning with President George the First. That the bloody pulp has somehow emerged victorious over the American pounding enrages and frustrates your vicarious homicidal proclivities, so that you now can do nothing but howl for even more draconian pounding.”

    Apparently you are hard of understanding. Especially the difference between rational and irrational targets and the value of limited engagements versus prolonged engagements.

    “Give it up. Spastic and incoherent American violence has lost again, as it should have. We lost the day we started this insanity. We win the day we stop it. Just stop it. The sooner safe-at-home Americans stop treating war-somewhere-else as “reality” TV entertainment, the sooner America and its many victims will begin the necessary healing. It seems to me that Americans ought to take the occasion of Sergeant Weichel’s death as an opportune moment to reflect on ceasing what America never should have begun.”

    Give what up? Looking to get justice against those who actually did attack us on 9/11? Not going to happen, dingus. We should have begun looking out for our national interests which would have been attack those who attacked us: Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. If you’ve got a problem with that? That would be your problem. And just one among many apparently.

  89. Michael Murray:

    “your “logical” associations reveal glaring gaps and leaps from one untenable assumption to another, and you give no sign of ever having contemplated the dire and irreversible consequences of the madness you advocate.”

    That is Gene H for you, he cant help himself.

  90. Actually, you’re both attributing something to my alternate strategy that is not there. Bron will say anything to distance and distract from his earlier display of selfishness. MM, you’re simply swinging at straw men. Go ahead and ignore that I imposed a time limit. Go ahead and ignore that I advocated the use of nuclear deterrent instead of first strikes. Go ahead and ignore that I advocated proper target selection for response. As long as you do, you’re simply going to be arguing against your own straw men. I’ve been war gaming my entire life. If you don’t think I have thought this strategy through, then you’re only fooling yourself. Had I been in charge, this conflict would have long been over and those responsible for 9/11 put on trial no matter what their business dealings with the Bush family might be.

  91. However, let’s steer back to the point:

    Sgt. Weichel behaved heroically and selflessly.

    That’s the only topic relevant to this thread. If you two clowns want to argue alternate strategy some more, you’ll have to save it for later. I’ll be glad to argue the point on an appropriate topic. You both seem to want to distract from the topic of this thread for your own reasons.

    Sgt. Weichel deserves better.

  92. Bron,

    “Do you think what he has called me and others is wrong? I never saw you chastise Gene or Buddha is Laughing when they were saying much worse things to many of us.”

    First, that’s not an answer to the question I asked you: “Do you think what you said to Gene was mean?” Second, you’ll have to provide me with examples of situations where I was involved in discussions on this blog and should have chastised Buddha and/or Gene for comments they made to you that were worse than what you said to Gene.

  93. id707,

    The name thing has to do with the sign in requirements. Some times I sign in before I post, sometimes after. Also, if I haven’t been on for awhile Word Press forgets me but I don’t know that till I try to post. It’s a bother. I could skip the whole process if I wanted to go without an avatar, which, quite frankly I’m thinking of doing since I’m having so much trouble adapting. Of course if I skip the avatar then anyone could sign in under my name … though why one would want to is beyond me.

    For now, just look for the avatar which is a picture I took in my backyard. If I’ve signed in as “hitspics boodac” with that avatar, it’s me.

  94. Gene H.

    Retreating behind the Sergeant, are you? Seems so. You were so happy with joining in on the save us from future wars discussions before.
    Well here comes one more, no armistice for you now.
    You launched a counter attack against a surprising attack from MM.
    And now comes a satrap and enters the fray, uncertain his motive.

    You ARE tired today. You support the use of nukes. You descend to:

    “Again, straw man much? My but you’re a tedious self-righteous twit.”

    insults of low quality. (A known tactic I’ve experienced. You do abandon arguments all too readily, mixing them indiscriminately with logical exhibitionism.)
    And you seek to avoid the effort by simply labeling everything he said as
    strawmen which he pushes over.
    I am perhaps who I am, ie limited, but his arguments do have resonance in us who don’t buy the Afghanistan scapegoat for nuking.

    Osama was quite simply given an offer he could not refuse. Your family or lead this red herring which can recruit and train for side track attacks to reinforce the image of Aghanistan as a goal for war.

    It gave us Iraq (which you say and I believe you, did not support.)
    It also fitted America’s strategic need to complete the circuit to the Pacific Rim (just aa Alexander wanted to do ; no relevance but interesting anyway).
    India is being suborned from within, Pakistan will fall or be bought later.
    So the task was done, but for one thing. Tha Afghanistan outlasted us, just as the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister told us they would do. And they were correct.
    So I can understand you
    And the role of SA has been ignored by you, focusing as you did earlier solely on Afghanistan who would be nuked.
    You, in any case, clearly have identified yourself, inconsequently, with non-violent demonstrations AND the violent use of unclearly motivated nuking.

    Rather inconsequential in my eyes.

    Draconian measures are nothing new.. From Cain to Ashoka killing his 99 brothers over throne rights, to Ottoman winners of succession rights to the killing of JFK, the list is long and will continue.

    But opening the Pandoran box for George and his successors to use seems to hail you as a nihilits. Aprex moi. le deluge. Pardon the bad French.

    That Obama has seized the Caeserian right of killing whom he will, an ideological extenstion of our right (as you exemplify with nuking) to pre-emptive wars—progressing fromf the false evidence of WMDs and the conspiracy with the Saudis to today is only logical. Logic is not right.

    Go ahead attack. Ridicule, brilliantly demonstrate your logical powers.
    heap abuse, do your best. But you will be met with accomodation as all satrapies do as survival, until the dominator weakens or is distracted.

    You and I are allies in the fight against America’s corruption in its government and politics—in fact just about all of public life, media corporatism, and health care is corrupt. That is simply why I turned my back. Until my concern for a dear relative awoke renewed interest.

    Abandon this maniacal idea. Revenge may be swift. But it is not free from eventual retribution. As long as a survivor exists who can reproduce you must be on your guard. That’s why how the opposition ws to be detected and fought and punished was written down in 320 BC, the same year ironically as Buddha’s enlightenment. But it was another person who wrote those instructions down.

    Let us join hands and forgive ourselves if the Afghanis can. Don’t ever let us hear you talking of nuking as a solution again. I hope not.

    My arguments are offered in all respect but the right to differ rules here.
    Go ahead and fire when ready. whatever his name was.

  95. Elaine:

    “Second, you’ll have to provide me with examples of situations where I was involved in discussions on this blog and should have chastised Buddha and/or Gene for comments they made to you that were worse than what you said to Gene.”

    You were privy to them and you know what I am talking about.

  96. Blouise,
    Aren’t computers wonderful. Just when you think……wham!
    No advice. You’ve been fighting the system longer than I have.

    I asked once about your avatar, as I sought and saw a larger version.
    Asked if it was Walden Pond. Would be in some way, months ago, appropriate for you. Now am not so sure.
    But knowing it is in your backyard. Wowee.! Come around and see my moose in the autumn when they steal apples from my tree in the country
    That’s the only thing I can offer other than 300+ rhododendron and azaleas, some of the many inappropriate plants we have. And the 80 step climb up the stairs to the “backyard”..

    But water, after forests the Swedes love water.
    You’ve been to Stockholm I believe. Our year round pleasures are both. My cottage is only 300 meters to a bay of the Baltic. But yours is better and year round too. Lovely.

  97. Elaine:

    why do you think it was mean? It was just an opinion. In fact an uninformed opinion. A response to his denigrating me. He knows nothing about me either.

    I thought what he said to me was mean. Maybe you didnt.

  98. id707,

    I don’t write to please you. If you’ve got a problem with a proper response to an attack on American people on American soil directed against those who actually did attack us – which was Saudi Arabia operating out of Afghanistan – then that’s your problem. If you’ve got a problem with what I think or what I write? Then that is your problem.

    But let’s make one thing perfectly clear. If you’re going to offer criticism, you better make sure you know that of which you speak. Revenge is not my primary interest. My primary interest is as it always is: justice. That justice and revenge sometime coincide is coincidental. “And the role of SA has been ignored by you, focusing as you did earlier solely on Afghanistan who would be nuked.” On the contrary. My primary focus would have been on SA. I’d have been in and out of Afghanistan in 6 months, 8 months tops. Just long enough to inflict enough damage to make them realize aiding and abetting terrorists bent on attacking Americans is a really bad idea and make sure that they knew if we had to come back, their country would not survive the encounter. And you apparently didn’t get the allusion offered when I said “annexed or made into a parking lot for North Africa”. Aside from Mecca and possibly Medina? Which I would not see destroyed any more than any place of such cultural and historical significance (one of the things I admire most about Adm. Ernest Doolittle was his forbearance in bombing Kyoto during WWII), I have no ethical, tactical or strategic issue with Riaydh being turned into a sheet of glass for the Saudi involvement in 9/11 and their role in the subversion of our democracy from within by their business partners, the Bush crime family. That being said, I’d naturally prefer the annex solution over any nuclear option, but warfare, strategy and tactics are not for the faint of heart or the squeamish. While willing, I’m certain that SA could have been brought to heal in such a manner that we might have even been able to turn the then secular Iraq into an ally on that issue. The Wahabists in SA have been the primary shit disturbers in the ME region since they came to power in SA. They are the ones responsible for quite a bit of the bad blood between the Shia and their brethren Sunni (Wahabism is a fundamentalist sub-sect of Sunni Islam but they prefer the term Salafis). Why? Because the Wahabi are fanatical zealots bent on domination of the world by their form of Islam and they are crafty enough to have played their enemies within the Islamic world against each other. There are very few religions I’ll categorically call evil. The form of Islam practiced by Saudi Wahabists is evil. They encourage a state of perpetual war against the “infidel” – including other Sunni sects.

    But neglect SA? Not in the slightest.

    Now, this clearly isn’t a retreat because I am willing to discuss the topic, but I am again going to return to the original topic of this thread – the heroic actions of Sgt. Weichel in saving the life of a little girl. Why? Because he deserves (at the very least) to have this thread be about him and not the politics of the region.

    If you want to broach this topic again on a more appropriate thread though, I’m more than willing to engage on the issue of ME politics and military strategy and tactics.

    But there has been quite enough of that here for the time being.

    If we are to honor Sgt. Weichel, let’s do so by discussing the nature of heroism if the topic must wander from the specific.

  99. Bron,

    If you’ve got a problem with me pointing out that you put your feet in your mouth, perhaps you should learn to think before you speak. However, until you correct that problem with your underlying operational principles, no amount of thinking is going to save you from making the same mistake over and over again. It sure hasn’t so far. You operate under the assumption that selfishness is a virtue. That assumption is written all over your initial comment. Again, if people criticize your actions, maybe you should consider that the problem isn’t with them, but within your actions.

  100. Will Karzai consider sgt Weizel a demon also? (And the acknowledgement of this man’s sacrifice does not, to me, take anything away from the atrocity of the massacre as was suggested earlier iin the thread.
    And to Gene and Bron, boys, boys…….)

  101. Gene H.
    So now we know you would have supported (perhaps) McArthur in bombing the border to China in N. Korea.
    And having been to Kyoto 3 times I agree there. But how did he get to make that decision. maybe because the Navy has always had the final say-so in the Pacific. and the later SAC commander did not always get to do all his fire bombings which McNamara planned so well.

    And in your in and out scheme of punishment for justice, how would you tell the difference between the guilty and the innocent. Would you be like the ones who asked how do we know if they are Cathars. Answer: kill them all, let God sort them out.
    And how as MM asked, would you confine your nuke fallout to fall only on the guilty.
    You sound delusional. Great comfort, but false ones.
    As for justice, as the catholic avenger said: Let god decide.
    Which means you can’t, however much you believe you can.

    Now having replied to your long “proof” of superiority with moderation, let me ask one final question.
    You seem well acquainted with Salafists and Wahabists.
    Have yor ever been in Saudi? Have you ever dined with a Saudi sheikh and eaten with golden “silverware”?
    Tell me the sources of your deep knowledge of the evils of Wahabism.

    But do it later. We can agree to part with regard for the Sergeant’s humanity.
    Let us hope that others observe his act’s true meaning in the future and don’t take up the rightieous arm of nukes to exact “justice” as your mortal capability perceives it. I take upon me the privilege of giving his deed my interpretation, just as all will, including you.

    You sound like George, Cheney ,and Co. It does seem similar.
    “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” Remember that one don’t you.

    Good man, he was, George. He said God was on his side. And with that he must have meant that all he did and at his command was “justified” by God. There was his justice. And how good was that? And why should yours be better? Are you not delusional now?

    Where do you get your right to use nukes as you see fit.
    You’re just the kind of President we need in the Oval.

  102. id707,

    “So now we know you would have supported (perhaps) McArthur in bombing the border to China in N. Korea.”

    No, you don’t.

    “And having been to Kyoto 3 times I agree there. But how did he get to make that decision. maybe because the Navy has always had the final say-so in the Pacific. and the later SAC commander did not always get to do all his fire bombings which McNamara planned so well.”

    McNamara? Wrong war. McNamara didn’t plan squat for WWII in either theater.

    “And in your in and out scheme of punishment for justice, how would you tell the difference between the guilty and the innocent. Would you be like the ones who asked how do we know if they are Cathars. Answer: kill them all, let God sort them out.”

    That may be your answer, but not mine. I said every training camp and their support networks. If there is collateral damage, it should be minimized, but it would not be avoided altogether. That is the reality of warfare and a transactional cost the Afghans should have considered before hosting training camps for terrorists bent on attacking Americans on American soil.

    “And how as MM asked, would you confine your nuke fallout to fall only on the guilty.”

    Again, you mistake deterrent and option for primary choice of action. You assume I wouldn’t give them the chance to evacuate either. As to fallout? All strategy must account for the weather.

    “You sound delusional.”

    And you sound senile. Do you really want to go down this path with me again? Because I’ll be glad to bounce on you again if you want to play that way again. I thought you’d learned your lesson. Apparently old dogs really can’t learn new tricks.

    “As for justice, as the catholic avenger said: Let god decide.
    Which means you can’t, however much you believe you can.”

    Your statement begs the question that only God can dispense justice. I don’t believe in God, but justice is quantifiable.

    “Now having replied to your long “proof” of superiority with moderation, let me ask one final question.”

    Moderation? You called me delusional, you senile old jackass.

    “You seem well acquainted with Salafists and Wahabists.
    Have yor ever been in Saudi? Have you ever dined with a Saudi sheikh and eaten with golden ‘silverware’?
    Tell me the sources of your deep knowledge of the evils of Wahabism.”

    How about you tell me of your experiences to the contrary? I have years of studying both political science, comparative religion, comparative law (including the laws of SA and Iran) and the politics of the region to rely upon in forming my opinion. The evils of Wahibism are my opinion. Their history in the region and dogma are matters of fact. Those facts inform my opinions. In my opinion they are as evil, misguided and dangerous as any fundamentalist religion. Personally, I could give a tinker’s damn about their religion. It is immaterial to the fact they run SA, SA who financed and manned and attack against us. Religion is not a reason to go to war. Being attacked is, however.

    “But do it later. We can agree to part with regard for the Sergeant’s humanity.”

    Yep.

    “Let us hope that others observe his act’s true meaning in the future and don’t take up the rightieous arm of nukes to exact ‘justice’ as your mortal capability perceives it.”

    Conflation. If you want to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, you’re about 60 years too late. Take it up with Oppenheimer. Sgt. Weichel’s heroic actions have nothing to do with alternative strategic responses to 9/11, hence my statement this is not the appropriate time or place to have this discussion.

    “I take upon me the privilege of giving his deed my interpretation, just as all will, including you.”

    Well good for you!

    “You sound like George, Cheney ,and Co. It does seem similar.
    ‘You’re either with us or with the terrorists’ Remember that one don’t you.”

    I am talking about the people who actually attacked us, an appropriate military response to an attack, not some jingoistic bullshit Bush the Dim and Cheney the Evil used to force the Patriot Act down America’s throat. However, your facile and inflammatory comparison has earned you . . . the finger.

    “Good man, he was, George. He said God was on his side. And with that he must have meant that all he did and at his command was ‘justified’ by God. There was his justice. And how good was that? And why should yours be better? Are you not delusional now?”

    Did I invoke God? No. Am I delusional? Not in the slightest. Just a strategist who would be willing to use any force – including deterrents – at my disposal. Again, you may not like the tool, but it’s in the toolbox. Mine would be better because 1) it is limited in scope to those nations who actually attacked us, 2) limited in scale and duration, 3) not driven by a personal family and business interest in cornering the oil markets and support services industry for said oil industry. In addition, you have made some presumptions about how I’d use nukes if they were needed. I really do doubt they’d be needed as anything other than a deterrent, but you go right ahead and swing at me some more, grandpa.

    “Where do you get your right to use nukes as you see fit.
    You’re just the kind of President we need in the Oval.”

    I never said I wanted the job, but if I had it, as CIC it would be well within my right to use them as I see fit, especially since I wouldn’t have relied upon the lame and vague Authorization of Force Bush relied upon (and abused) but would have pushed for formal declaration of war against SA and Afghanistan based on intelligence instead of my family’s personal greed. However, I don’t make idle threats either. I’ve already stipulated use as a threat after leaving Afghanistan and a preference for manual subdual of SA while preserving a (limited) nuclear option. If that offends your touchy-feely sensibilities? Too bad. However, I’m not going to accuse you being with the terrorists. No. That’s chickenshit jingoistic nonsense. I’m just going to say you’re way too spineless to win a war if you won’t consider all your options and if you consider attacking those who attacked us as an improper response. Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. They had nothing to do with it. They were a quagmire waiting to happen because the only thing holding that country together as a secular nation was the despotic Saddam. Afghanistan was always going to be a quagmire without an in/out strategy because Afghanistan has always been a quagmire due to the tribalism and the terrain that fosters it. Saudi Arabia did attack us and did so with aid from Afghans. How would my strategy be better? We’d have attacked the proper parties and not gotten bogged down in two quagmires while letting the primary culprits get away and continue to be a regional agitator for starters.

    Sgt. Weichel would likely not have been in Afghanistan and if he had it would have been for a much shorter period of time under my strategy.

    *****************

    And what W=^..^ said. Nice yard, Blouise.

  103. You are all invited to drop by any time you wish. Look out one window and see the avatar, look out another and see the power of Lake Erie.

    Tex and I have spent 30 years naturalizing it so it’s very park like with no formality.

    I took one this winter right after a gorgeous snowfall. There was a cardinal sitting on the branches of a snow covered bush. I’ll move it to the gravatar site when it gets really hot this summer and use it as an avatar.

  104. GeneH.
    Wrong. McNamara has, in an 55 minute program after retirement etc., described with priide (of his planning prowess) the optimisation of the fire bombing raids over Japanese cities. He was working for and reported to the cigar-chewing general who later became head of SAC.

    How do you define support network? In this case they would be integrated and difficult to separate from civilians . That is the advantage the guerilla has everywhere. Even iso n our own nation, which HLS is countering and we are suffering for. The FBI watch for list, etc.

    Who would do the target defining and how?
    Still unclear what you would nuke.

    Essentially, these terrorists only need a place to sleep, eat, and do “training” under the bare sky. Besides killing them, you make no irreparable damage which must be replaced before resumption of their operations. And people can be replaced just as we do our dead and wounded soldiers.

    Nice to see you hop from firm ground to firm ground in the swamp.
    Those are sure points that I won’t deny: Saddam’s worth, Iraq’s secular bulwark value (against Iranian expansion, which you did not mention), the evils of Wahabism, the shortness of engagement, the avoidance of feeding the MIC (my point) and the personal loss and trauma of war on the USA, ———-yes there is much to stand on.

    There is for me primarily the use of nukes. The assurance you have that nuclear deterrance would work against what you agree is not a nation, and not likely to become one in a hundred years, is something I can not share. And death to the guerilla is Inshalah, of no great concern. His family is elsewhere, so no harm to them. And besides he has hundreds of cousins too (however remote the relationsship)

    Terrorism is a mobile enemy—-now it is the USA and it’s citizens who are being checked. Reasonable outcome of even the nuke battle???)
    And the nuke acceptability in this world today against peewee opponents. A few good helicopter battalions could do the same job as the nukes, I feel.

    It is our ambition to gain and hold nations which caused this costly war.
    And of course the MIC profit motive we despise.

    The one thing you have not mentioned is the initiative which secured a shock effect to insure our willingness to believe in a nebulous but highty dangerous enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which required war.

    I fully believe it was Bush and Co. who did it, planned it internally and with the Saudis who gave the unavoidable choice to Osama..
    But that’s another discussion.

    My respect for your knowledge which exceeds mine on religion and law is assured..
    It would be especially interesting to me to know who and how were you taught the muslim teacings. A difficult subject, as muslims know.

    And as for delusiona. to which you reply senile. Both are medical conditions which effect ones mental abilities. In my case I meant nothing pejorative, it was to me indicated by your gripping irrational solutions of mass destruction with nukes. Your ignoring the psychological and strategic impact of playing the nuclear card is still indicative of a wrong call. Your rage seems somewhat diminished now in your latest.
    But your need to heap abuse is as usual. Heaping abuse is a poor weapon, and demeans the user—-as some media figures have found out.

    To meet in a battle of ideas is nothing I fear. My error before was in choosing the wrong field of engagement. If you don’t know the terrain and you don’t have the weapons then you are lost. A mental match to you. entailing eventual losing a point doesn’t perturb me.
    Don’t care, really. It doesn’t perturb me to lose, as it seems to do to you.
    I will gladly go down any road with you again, when it suits me. But if you want to elevate me to status of “enemy”, why then you are taking yourself and myself too seriously.

    It I am wrong, I am the first to admit it. Endurance is not stubborness- based for me, it is solely seeking the truth, until the point loses its point.

    Your use of demeaning words demean you of course. My “facile” comparisons are just that and no more. I accept your rebuttal and your renounciation of George, his companions and his deeds.

    I wish I could see him being flown in a ceremonial helicopter or train with many stops across the nation, on his way to life imprisonment.

    Do you think they would stand beside the track and cry as they did for FDR? Not me. Pardon the oratory.

    See you for another one. We’ll see which side we are on then.
    You know I do appreciate much you say, but your need to always end on top makes me wonder at times.

    PS You mention Oppenheimer, another genius. Do you know the story of why we got the bomf first? That it was dependent on a Jewish woman living in Sweden?

  105. Blouise.
    I can not spell it or pronounce it,, but I recognize the avatar.

    You are far from Walden Pond, but equally an idyll. You have read it.
    How was it for you? For me like having a massage which removed so many kinks long endured. Like spending time with a congenial friend.

    Your cardinal is a “stuffed” one, I assume. We have living waxwings with cardinal like toffs (?) on their heads who show up after storms. They come from the north and Finland to eat the red berries on the relative to the sumac tree (name?). They are always in flocks, and their calls are like the ringing of small bells. Fleeting but wonderful visits.

    Lake Erie I guess brings snow cannons like we get at times when cold winds across the warmer Baltic in the Autumn can drop two feet of snow on the coastland.

  106. Wrong? Not hardly.

    McNamara didn’t plan bombing runs in WWII. In WWII, his responsibility was the analysis of U.S. bombers’ efficiency and effectiveness. Analysis, not planning for deployment. Those bombers were commanded and their missions were planned by Major General Curtis LeMay who was arguably a war criminal (even by his own admission). McNamara established a statistical control unit for Bomber Command and the only planning he did was in conjunction with said control unit and it consisted of scheduling for B-29s doubling as transports for carrying fuel and cargo. Logistics. Not tactical or strategic. He had no role in strategic or tactical planning until Vietnam when he was SecDef.

    “How do you define support network? In this case they would be integrated and difficult to separate from civilians . That is the advantage the guerilla has everywhere. Even iso n our own nation, which HLS is countering and we are suffering for. The FBI watch for list, etc.

    Who would do the target defining and how?
    Still unclear what you would nuke.”

    Blah blah blah etc.

    Again – this is neither the time nor place for this discussion. Not very quick on the uptake. Is there some part of the concepts of “later” or “elsewhere” that escapes you?

    It seems I also have to explain this once again: I don’t consider you an enemy. If you think you merit that designation then you flatter yourself. You’re not cogent, argumentatively skilled or consistent enough to be a threat let alone an enemy. However, if you just want to act like a douche bag, I’m perfectly content to treat you like you’re acting like a douche bag. Act cordially, get treated cordially. Act like a douche bag, get treated like a douche bag. It’s really pretty simple. Speaking of douche baggery . . .

    “And as for delusiona. to which you reply senile. Both are medical conditions which effect ones mental abilities. In my case I meant nothing pejorative, ”

    The Hell you didn’t.

    That’s three times now you’ve called me delusional. Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is a pattern. Back peddle all you like. By the way, if you wish to apologize (again) or further equivocate at this point, I cordially invite you to insert said worthless apology firmly up your rectum where it can rest comfortably next to your apparently besotted and/or senile cranium. You’ve had your three strikes.

    Have a nice day.

  107. GeneH,

    Always right. Never failing to insult as his last move. Telling people to stick it up their rectums, etc.
    Same o, same o.

    Still haven’t proved the worth of nuking anything connected to the terrorists in Afghanistan. That disappeared, which was the main point. of contentio from my side.

    Apologize? Never happen for this trifling incident. Enemy, with your abuse it could not reasonably be said to be peace and friendship you seek.

    I still contend that anyone who believes that nukes solve any conflict is delusional—–you or whoever. So I’ve said it a fourth time.

    Go douche your mouth. You could not kiss your mother with that dirty one spitting filth.

    Nuf said.

  108. “Your cardinal is a “stuffed” one, I assume. We have living waxwings with cardinal like toffs (?) on their heads who show up after storms. They come from the north and Finland to eat the red berries on the relative to the sumac tree (name?). They are always in flocks, and their calls are like the ringing of small bells. Fleeting but wonderful visits.” id707
    ——————————–

    Twice in my life I have been excited to see a flock of Cedar Waxwings….over 20 years ago in Massachusetts and quite recently in South Florida…..they migrate through and stop at the berry bar. They are really pretty birds….

  109. id707,

    Sure. Back peddle some more to claim you were making a general statement and not a specific statement when called on you being initially insulting. Sell that bullshit to someone who believes it. “Still haven’t proved the worth of nuking anything connected to the terrorists in Afghanistan. That disappeared, which was the main point. of contentio from my side.” Get back to me when you’re smart enough to differentiate “deterrent” from “tactic of first recourse”. You know, that thing you keep glossing over.

    On second thought, don’t get back to me.

    I don’t care how old you are or what your excuse is (medical or otherwise) and I really don’t care what you believe since you’re showing a proclivity to make up reality as you go along. I’ve seen all your symptoms before in people your age and in people I cared a lot more about than you and I didn’t put up with their passive/aggressive bullshit either. I told you I wasn’t having this conversation here and on top of that you’ve had your three strikes with me. I treat people exactly as they treat me. If you don’t like what you’re getting, consider what you are giving. If that presents a problem for you? Too bad. You’ve flat run out of slack with me.

  110. GeneH
    When do you go over to death threats? I have only used one word of what you feell is abuse—-delusional. All else has been argumentation based on fact. But you can’t see your pattern where you ante up the abuse and threats from round to round.
    Seems like bullying to me. I don’t care one way of the other what I’m getting from you. Cosider the worth of the argument is all that counts with me.
    And trying to put some flesh on the person behind the words, which all do.

    You readh the end point you used last time. You say I’m senile and mentally deficient. Then if that is right then why did you attack this old dement person at all. His stupidity can’t hurt you. But apparently my words and ideas do.

    And you hiding behind niceties of facts and logic to hide your deficiencies on main points. Three examples: Why are nukes better than a 3 battalion battle group with 50,000 civilian contractors? (The contractors are used to explode the mines by waling ahead of the troops.)
    Why are the details of McN duties in WW2 so important when you simply said wrong war. He himself thought it was important what he did there. That was at any rate a very minor point, but worth great energy from your side.
    And the third one is the main one, why use nukes at all.
    Which you try to avoid by using such military strategic niceties as when you pull this one out:
    “Get back to me when you’re smart enough to differentiate “deterrent” from “tactic of first recourse”. You know, that thing you keep glossing over”

    You have from the beginning called for the latter and was called on it by MM.
    Well, I could not resist in chiming in. And don’t regret it. Challenging bullies is what I’ve done all my life. Including CEOs of companies with more than 110,000 employees. He could have fired me on the spot, but knew that he and the company would lose so much from bad media PR, that all he did was glare at me. So Sweden is not America. Here the unions appoint reps who sit on the board of directors. I did later.

    So you are small potatoes in rank (am assuming of course), but far smarter than he was and is. Not saying much, of course. You won’t understand that this was no snark at you, but at him. Ho hum..

    So you get to hurl the last barrel of shit confirming your superiority, shit always confirms that, some think.

    Good luck with that.

    Oh yes, as for being old. I use it not as a crutch nor an excuse. Rather as part of my defining profile: my idiom from the 60’s, my views of America from the same, and my ignorance as to what you people have been doing the last 45 years. No more. Just a way to explain to folks here why I speak English, am American, but don’t understand your ways.

    And won’t do otherwise. It’s part of me. Attack it as you will.
    Bullies do usually use large amounts of ridicule. So confirm your role preference. Attacking seem to comfort you. I wonder that you see the need of such plebian tactics.

    Remind me some time to tell you Herodotus’ story of the king who slew wheat straws.

  111. id707,

    “You readh the end point you used last time. You say I’m senile and mentally deficient. Then if that is right then why did you attack this old dement person at all. His stupidity can’t hurt you. But apparently my words and ideas do.”

    Hurt me? Not in the slightest, but when you insult me and then take offense that I fight back? Quite simply, screw you. Bully? That’s pretty funny considering you’re the one who started insulting me. I’m not a bully because I refuse to take any shit off of you, pardner. That passive/aggressive act may play with your relatives who have to put up with you and with the people paid to take care of you, but I simply don’t have to listen to it unchallenged and won’t. Don’t start none, won’t be none.

    “And you hiding behind niceties of facts and logic to hide your deficiencies on main points. ”

    No, actually I’m trying not to have a conversation you seem hellbent on having. Not because I can’t make my argument, not in the slightest, but because this isn’t the place. As I’ve said. Repeatedly. I told you “later”. Deal with it or don’t because guess what? I don’t take my marching orders from you and I don’t write to please you.

    “Why are the details of McN duties in WW2 so important when you simply said wrong war. He himself thought it was important what he did there.”

    You’re the one who brought him up, slick. However, it’s important to point out when your opponent is wrong. You were wrong in claiming McNamara planned WWII bombing raids. Simple matter of fact.

    Speaking of facts . . .

    You said, “You have from the beginning called for the latter and was called on it by MM. Well, I could not resist in chiming in. And don’t regret it.”

    When what I actually said initially (as in from the begining), verbatim, was . . .

    “What we should have done with Afghanistan is simply this: bombed every training camp we could find and the villages that acted as their support networks and told the Afghans that if they ever trained personnel to attack U.S. targets again, we’d come back with nukes.” [emphasis added for the hard of understanding]

    What’s that? Why, that’s a secondary nuclear option created by a conditional if/then clause! Who’d have thunk it other than those who can understand what they read?

    “And then left them to their Islamic hillbilly ways with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. I’d also have the willpower to uphold that threat. Then again, we should also have annexed Saudi Arabia or turned them into a parking lot for North Africa for their role in 9/11.” [emphasis added for the hard of understanding]

    Again, the secondary nuclear option created this time by an operand “or”.

    Seems like you’re factually wrong again, id707, but I’m sure you don’t regret that either.

    You apparently think you’re some kind of hero for starting shit with me and then “standing up for yourself”? Whatever it takes to make you feel good, gramps. The rest of what you say isn’t worth addressing.

  112. idealist, We get the cedar waxwings for about 8 weeks here. They should be leaving in a week or two. I have several large savannah hollies with red berries. A flock was outside the window eating the berries yesterday.

  113. Gene H.
    Thanks for the original quote. My miss. But that you are a bully, I stand by.
    Obvious, by your choice of abuse.

    Let it ride. You never retreat. Least of all from stupid old farts who are what ever shit you are hurling for the moment.

    We will meet again, I stand by my points and my judgements.
    Of course, if I need add.

  114. SwM,

    How happy your words make me. They are like winged elfs, magical birds to me. Their bells ring, and they exchange small talk between them.

    We don’t ever have them more than two days, which makes it all the more precious. Too few berries perhaps.

    You say they will be leaving soon. Northward I presume.

    Shall we be like the indians, and say that they are the ghosts of our ancestors looking for the game they once could hunt?

  115. id707,

    You should be very clear on this point: I could give a rat’s ass if someone who starts a fight with me considers me a bully for not taking their crap lying down. The first stone hurled was from your hand while hiding behind MM. He was at least smart enough to drop it. You, on the other hand? If you don’t like the outcome of the battle, then you shouldn’t have started it, but you don’t get to be the instigator and then play victim.

    You are right about one thing though.

    I am not a fan of retreat. I’ll use it as a tactic when necessary or advantageous, but it’s not my first option of choice. Retreat is neither necessary nor advantageous in the face of a lying (or even simply mistaken) passive/aggressive fool who (completely mistakenly) thinks he can start an ad hominem and factually baseless fight with me and not suffer the repercussions. Fools? I don’t suffer them gladly. I don’t suffer them at all. Ask anyone who knows me.

    We will meet again?

    Not if you’re lucky or smart.

  116. Always have the last word do you. Also typical. I don’t hide behind anyone. I’ve always been the first to raise a hand to challeng overbearing authorities. ( Even as a Lt. in SigOff course. Finished first of 25. ) .

    MM challenged your use of nukes, and so do I. As first measure or retribution. Asinine both uses.

    But MM was wiser and saw immediately that arguing with you is meaningless, if one expects reasonable exchange of ideas without abuse being flung constantly in reply.

    And yes, you can be abusive in bullying but more decorous ways, as you demonstrate now.

    Go ahead and have the last sling. I am not retreating further than my bed to read Indian history. I got so engaged by you that it was 3AM when I got to bed. Won’t do the same today.

    Not to challenge, but as a question to one who is well-read on Islam.
    Have you encountered: Quran, a reformist translation, Brainbow Press?
    Again, where did you get your islamic educatiion?
    Or do you answer questions from fools?

    I shall use you and treat you as I think you deserve. Threats as to future punishment if I should dare challenge you again is, of course, the mark of the bully. As was the choice of your first car would attest also. Touché, mon cher.

  117. Whatever it takes to make you feel better about starting shit you can’t finish, id707.

    “MM challenged your use of nukes, and so do I. As first measure or retribution. Asinine both uses.”

    Wow. I’ve already and almost immediately previously proven you a liar on that “first option” statement once already. Are you really that stupid or simply that far gone into your organic brain syndrome? See . . . that’s both a counter and an insult. It’s what you’ve earned. However, if you care to lie some more, I’ll be glad to point it out some more.

    “But MM was wiser and saw immediately that arguing with you is meaningless, if one expects reasonable exchange of ideas without abuse being flung constantly in reply.”

    First, arguing with me is meaningless when you either stack your statements with straw men as MM did or with outright unfounded lies as you did. Why is it meaningless? Because I can win arguments like that in my sleep. The duration and amount of invective is directly proportionate to the shit you dish out, old bean. The arguments proper were defeated simply by pointing out the straw men and your “factual inaccuracies”.

    Second, the abuse was started at your hand, so quite simply screw you, you belligerent old fart. You call it bullying? You have an odd definition of bullying when you’re the instigator. I call it fighting back when attacked by a lying jackass who can’t take what he dishes out. Like I said, I don’t give a shit what you think about me, but when you start a fight with me (and you most certainly did), you don’t get to claim victim status when I kick your ass at both insult and argument when you were the instigator. You started this. You reap what you have sown. If the fruit of your harvest is bitter, you’ve no one to blame but yourself.

    And you should learn to differentiate a threat from advice.

    A threat would have been something entirely different. For one thing, I don’t make them. I simply act. Sometimes I warn, sometimes I don’t. But threaten you?

    If you’re lucky or smart, you’ll stop picking fights you cannot win.

    That’s just good advice.

    Whether you take it or not is entirely up to you.

  118. Idealost707,

    You challenge a person in uniform doing what they do to keep you safe, indicates you are a piece of shit.

  119. Gene H:

    I haven’t dropped anything, other than you.

    As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely said: “Controversy equalizes wise men and fools alike — and the fools know it.

    I have no wish to join in your contrived controversies. No one can argue sanely for nuclear war, much less with the glib abandon that you routinely exhibit. I would dismiss you with that alone, if I thought you capable of taking a hint. What else you have to say in your fallacy-riddled diatribes touting spastic, atavistic violence for its own sake merits even less consideration. Consider yourself duly dropped.

    Idealist:

    About a year after I came home from my desultory eighteen month tour of duty in Vietnam (January of 1972), the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. summed up the entire mad misadventure succinctly in The Imperial Presidency:

    “The weight of messianic globalism [proved] too much for the American Constitution. … In fact, the policy of indiscriminate global intervention, far from strengthening American security, … rather [weakened] it by involving the United States in remote, costly and mysterious wars, fought in ways that shamed the nation before the world and, even when thus fought, demonstrating only the inability of the most powerful nation on earth to subdue bands of guerrillas in black pajamas.”

    Adding insult to the injury of obvious learning impairment by the U.S. Government, retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich writes, in Washington Rules: America’s path to permanent war:

    “President Bush had embarked upon successive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq expecting each to end quickly and decisively. Yet in each theater — fighting dragged on, increased in intensity, turned ugly, and consumed prodigious amounts of blood and treasure. The global war on terror morphed into what the Pentagon began styling as the Long War, a conflict defined not by purpose, adversary, or location, but by duration [emphasis added], which was indeterminate.”

    In other words, having embarked on a war against already impoverished peoples and nations that had not attacked America — a Saudi criminal gang did that — the U.S. military rushed into a trap halfway around the world, flailed about in the quicksand of its own making, lost any hope of figuring out what it had wanted to accomplish in the first place, and then predictably settled for endless stalling and ass-covering in the hopes of simply keeping the ticket-punching careerism going for as long as possible. Failing to win a war quickly, as promised, our vaunted Visigoths had — and have — no other hope (one can hardly call it a “plan”) than that the American people will just go back to sleep if the status quo of new genius generals and a few heroic enlisted men every year just goes on and on and on and …

    As we said back in Vietnam: “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here.” There to be there — for as long as possible.

    Like many of my friends and high-school classmates, Sergeant Weichel died so that the dying could continue. The big brass simply cannot admit their culpability in monumental failure. Nor can their civilian “leadership.” War has failed, as nearly every war does, yet the American foreign policy “elite” lives in abject terror of the American people growing fed up enough to force their Congress to do what it finally did in 1975: Turn off the bullshit and cut off the money.

    I once thought that some of us Vietnam veterans had not died for nothing when the country amended the Constitution so that 18-year-olds could vote, something we couldn’t do and which made conscription possible. I have had to content myself with that, having had to abandon previous foolish thoughts that America might have learned from our experience not to do such stupid things again. Our imperial presidnets, however, have simply dragooned the state reserves into the regular army, and hired a legion of profiteering mercenaries to make up for the dearth of American citizens now unwilling to waste themselves in fruitless military service to America’s unhinged “elite leadership,” political, corporate, military, and media — but I repeat myself.

  120. That and you can’t argue without using straw men (a logical fallacy – lots of them too), but whatever you like to think, MM. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t just take your word I’m a fallacious arguer when your entire arguement was composed of straw men. You didn’t even come close to accurately representing my position. Then again, I shouldn’t expect cogent argument from a self-styled poet. It is neither your training or your proclivity. And on a personal note of aesthetic review, from one writer to another, your poetry is trite and tedious.

    Have a nice day.

  121. Idealist (and any other interested party):

    If our friend Gene H ever accuses you of “picking a fight with him,” simply reply that as a matter of pity and principle you never get into intellectual gunfights with unarmed men.

    In fact, whatever “fight” remains in Afghanistan, the United States has long since lost it. The American public already knows this and does not care. The American government and military establishment that touted this tragedy in the first place, however, have a really big problem — the same one a previously corrupt and incompetent American government faced four decades ago near the end of the Vietnam debacle: namely, Saving Face. How to lose spectacularly without anyone — especially the American people — noticing and booting out of office and career those responsible. Again, from Fire in the Lake: the Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam:

    “But by the beginning of 1968 it was precisely time that mattered to the American government in its attempt to save itself from something that might look like defeat. Whether Johnson ever had any greater ambitions, it now became clear that the original aims as explained to the American public no longer held. What had looked like an attempt to “save Vietnam from Communism” was rather an attempt to save American “prestige” around the world. But the time for that had already passed by. The leaders of other nations had already seen what a small and determined group of people could do to the United States and were in the process of drawing their conclusions. The American war effort had, then, become almost entirely solipsistic: the U. S. government was trying to save “American prestige” for Americans alone, to convince itself of American superiority.”

    We have gone through this sort of humiliation before, however, and nothing like the predicted apocalypse occurred. Things more or less got back to normal for America and Southeast Asia and today few think that anything much different will happen when America’s military hauls ass out of yet another untenable hole in the ground. If Americans do not want any more Sergeant Weichels dying “over there” for ungrateful Afghans then we don’t need to send our unappreciated soldiers “over there” to get killed. Like the patient who said to his doctor: “It hurts when I do this,” only to hear his doctor reply, sensibly: “Then don’t do that,” America needs to stop playing the wounded masochist and just take care of business at home.

    When the landlocked Taliban seminary graduates assemble their mighty ocean armada and set sail to attack and invade New Jersey, hopefully the United States Navy will take care of things far out to sea. They proved completely useless on 9/11/2001, but perhaps the next time they’ll do something useful.

  122. MM,

    Resorting to pure ad hominem now that you’re all out of straw men, my pedantic petulant poet? You do know what a straw man is, don’t you? It is an informal logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. A form of lie either intentional or unintentional.

    How utterly adorable.

    Seriously, you should stick to your bad poetry instead of argumentation. You lack the requisite skills. You couldn’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag given your piteous previous performance precariously prevaricated upon pasturage postulations of phony portrayals. I’ve never seen that many straw men in a single argument from an adult before. One must usually visit with a four year old to get that much fantasy based argument. It was truly impressive. Much more so than your poetry.

    Bravo.

  123. Lousy attempt at alliteration, Gene H. Like most of what I’ve read from you.
    I’d gladly swap insults, but you haven’t the talent for it, either in prose or verse. I thought the “wet paper bag” gambit went out with the covered wagon. Got anything from at least the last half of the twentieth century? What does a wet paper bag have to do with argumentation, anyway? I’d say that constitutes a non sequitur, or utter irrelevance. But there you go again …

    By the way, attempting to justify your own lousy logic and penchant for the ad hominem through use of the Tu Quo Que — or “You do it, too!” fallacy — fails, of course, as all fallacies do. Should you seriously wish to improve your sloppy screeds, I recommend getting a copy of T. Edward Damer’s excellent text, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: a Guide to Fallacy Free Arguments. You’d have to read it, of course, and that poses the problem of comprehension. But you’ve got to start somewhere. The beginning would do in your case.

    Speaking of good argumentation, I thought that Professor Turley did a rather bad job of attacking Afghan President Hamid Karzai for calling all American soldiers “demons.” Although he did not state his objections precisely, Professor Turley seems to think that President Karzai arrived at a general — and unfair — conclusion based on extrapolation from an insufficient sample of American military behavior. In other words, just because “some” American soldiers behave like demons — and many have — that does not make “all” American soldiers demons. Fair enough, but to argue the opposite by postulating that “one” heroic American solider justifies concluding that “all” American soldiers behave bravely and selfishly basically commits the same fallacy in counter argument. In fact, Professor Turley compounds his fallacious reasoning by claiming that, because some Americans mourn the passing of the soldier in question, that therefore the entire nation does. Another conclusion based on obviously insufficient data.

    Therefore, I submit that Professor Turley has failed to provide sufficient example data of American heroes versus American demons in order to demonstrate with evidence that he, rather than President Karzai, has the most reason for reaching unjustified conclusions — in his case, not once but twice. Professor Turley should have known better. President Karzai only argued fallaciously once.

    You already believe what you want to believe and think that you can say anything whatsoever — like that any sane statesman would contemplate waging nuclear war for any reason — without pausing to acknowledge that no sane statesman since 1945 has initiated any such war, under any pretext, and none would today. One could dispose of your other bald assertions of nonsense equally easily, but I’ve already done that. So have others. You’ve lost. Give it up and move on. Better luck next time.

  124. Oh, yes, Gene H. … On the point of “straw men,” which word-like noise you have learned to parrot, I retort that no one can misrepresent an argument that you fail to make. You do a good enough job of failing to make an argument yourself. Why should anyone else bother deconstructing your dreary diatribes? (I ask that question rhetorically, expecting no answer from a place where none could possibly originate.)

    Mindless Militarism doesn’t work for America. You can keep trying to argue that it does, but the facts and common-sense reasoning defeat you at every turn. Trying to insult people — as I have said — would at least have some entertainment value if you could do it with a minimum of style. But you fail even at that.

    My pity you have. My admiration, not so much.

  125. (Blouise and SW, beautiful, thanks for sharing with the avatar and the video – this thread definitely needssome beauty and intermission)

  126. Actually, it was a very good use of alteration as it was intended to tweak your nose, which judging by your reaction it did.

    I’ll take a logic critique from you when you demonstrate you can actually argue without straw men and understand what argument from non-sequitur actually constitutes. “What does a wet paper bag have to do with argumentation, anyway? I’d say that constitutes a non sequitur, or utter irrelevance.” See, it’s called a simile. I was comparing your weak argument style to the minimal amount of force it takes to punch through a wet paper bag. That is not an argument from non-sequitur when I am criticizing your lack of skill as illustrated by your wonderfully ridiculous use of multiple straw men and your apparent ability to impress yourself with such argumentation as if making material misrepresentations of another’s position is some kind of genius tactic when, in fact, it was merely wonderfully ridiculous. If it was argument by non-sequitur, it would require a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. I would also like to add that ad hominem gets it in return, Mr. Can’t Argue Without Misrepresenting Others Positions. Considering your initial feeble and fallacious statement to me was laden with insult (as was id707’s), that’s called a tactical response in kind, not a tu quoque fallacy. A tu quoque fallacy is an appeal to hypocrisy. See, I didn’t dismiss your argument because you were inconsistent. I dismissed your argument because it was composed almost entirely of straw men. Structurally, it was crap. I dismissed id707’s argument because it was also based on straw men and your straw men too, I might add, since he apparently never even bothered to read my original statement. As for the ad hominem, I could have ignored yours or id707’s insults and simply dismissed/disassembled your “arguments” based on structural flaws alone. Both of you were (and still are) making glaring material misrepresentations of what I said. Not really a strong position for you to argue from. I chose to insult you in addition (respond in kind) because, quite simply, you’re acting like a dick so I’m going go treat you like you’re acting like a dick. It wasn’t a strategic or tactical decision. It was a social decision. If you don’t like that? Too bad. There is something called the Golden Rule. It’s a reciprocal relationship. I suggest you look into it. However, thanks for showing once again that you don’t know what the Hell you’re talking about.

    I’ll also take English criticism when you demonstrate you write poetry better than a weak minded fifth grader who doesn’t speak English as their first language. I suppose that you can pass off your dreck in Taiwan though. Not a lot of native English speakers there let alone literature majors with law degrees, are there?

    You keep flailing away though.

    It really is adorable.

  127. “On the point of “straw men,” which word-like noise you have learned to parrot, I retort that no one can misrepresent an argument that you fail to make.”

    lol

    I wasn’t making an argument in my original statement, dingus. I was making a statement you chose to treat as an argument and then proceeded to completely and totally misrepresent. Again, when you misrepresent another’s position just to attack it? That’s a straw man argument. See what happens when you actually know what logical terms mean? You can use them properly like I did.

    You’re not very bright, are you?

    That was a rhetorical question.

  128. MM

    Appreciated your personal notes.
    “As we said back in Vietnam: “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here.” There to be there — for as long as possible.”
    To which I add: Because they sent us here, sent us here, sent us here. Oh, so drear.

    I sat in Bangkok, banging the round eye girls including Peace Corps ones, between designing B 52 bases. One in use today.
    My own mil 2 years at Ft Huachuca, shan’t repeat.

    The several books you cite are interesting. We learned nothing from Vietnem, except war is profitable for some, and the American public is steerable. Only the draft and racial unrest forced Nixon after many years to honor his campaign promise—-only the honor was missing.

    We still wage war for the ticket-punchees and the MIC, not our security. Now they are so audacious as to, as you note, promise us endless insecurity. They have even instigated via FBI programs of “they are everywhere, be alert for signs” and staged threats (even “ball burner” was arranged at our instigation.

    Conflicts with a bull-headed man is like bull-fighting, but one is deprived the coup-de-grace pleasure as the bull exits snorting. An assumed premise fails to materialize. Can one argue with a bull.? Ir’s quite impossible.

  129. SwM,
    Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Glad we share that feeling of wonder.
    Much can be analyzed scientifically, but it is still wonderful to fall back and enjoy this mystery.
    I hope I can reply with the Swedish ones with “bell” calls. Different.
    Perhaps they don’t come when they feed here either. Don’t recall.

  130. Gene H.

    Normally, I wouldn’t waste my time instructing the intentionally obtuse, but in your case I’ll make an exception. I’ve discovered your problem, or at least the most glaring of them. To wit: you do not know the difference in meaning between “reductio ad absurdum,” “straw man,” and “ad hominem” argumentation, part of what Arthur Schopenhauer called “Dialectical Disputation.” First, consider:

    reductio ad absurdum

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproved by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

    As an edifying example of this age-old principle or reasoning, consider the following passage from the letter of resignation of Matthew Hoh, former Marine Corps and Foreign Service Political Officer (September 10, 2009):

    “I find specious the reasons we ask for blood and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. [note: by “etc,” read Saudi Arabia, the fountainhead of Islamic Jihadism] Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled and weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11 attacks, as well as as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries [emphasis added]. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement with Mexico.”

    Here we have three separate invocations by Mr Hoh of the reductio ad absurdumprinciple. (1) Attacking and occupying a geographic territory because some “bad guy” training has taken place there requires attacking and occupying other territories where similar, or even more relevant “bad guy” training has taken place. (2) Occupying a destabilized country for fear that its neighbor might lose control of its nuclear weapons logically requires us to invade and occupy the neighbor with the nuclear weapons, not the country without them. (3) Our concern for remote and impoverished failed states overcome by drug lords and corruption logically demands that we concern ourselves even more with such states on our own southern border.

    None of these three examples of exploding an absurd proposition constitutes setting up a “straw man,” or deliberately misconstrued argument, advanced by apologists for America’s disastrously failed policy in Afghanistan. Nor does exploding an absurd proposition constitute an “ad hominem” — or personal — attack upon those defending or promoting the absurd proposition. Of course, those who have advanced such untenable apologetics and find them exploded in their faces may experience a sense of personal humiliation and because of their hurt feelings infer from all the egg on their face that those who have pointed to their egg-covered faces have thrown eggs at them. Not so. Simple unconscious projection accounts for it. As America’s premier logician Charles Sanders Peirce put it back in the nineteenth century: “Blame, in every case, appears as a modification, often accompanied by a transference, or projection, of the primary feeling of self reproach.”

    In this thread, I have argued the same points in the same way that Mr Hoh has. I have not needed to set up any phony “straw man” arguments because the logical absurdity of the stated apologetics reveal their bankruptcy upon simple examination. As for your puerile fantasy that you have “broken my nose,” I retort that you have only broken wind, and in thinking that you smell a rat’s ass, you only smell your own. Now that admitted barb you may not call an “ad hominem” comment, because “ad hominem” means “to the man,” which excuses you from consideration. By this I mean that I’ll gladly stipulate to making an “ad pueri” comment; but I make it incidentally, and not in any way as part of my logical argumentation. Absurdity remains absurdity, irrespective of whether adults or children indulge in it.

    Matthew Hoh has pointed to an unkind truth: namely, that American servicemen like Sergeant Weichel have died for “specious reasons,” often, like the sad case of Pat Tillman, at the hands of their own fellow servicemen. Nowhere does Mr Hoh castigate the Afghans for “ingratitude,” as Professor Turley does. “The fault, Horatio, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves,” as Shakespeare wrote. We should, of course, exit Afghanistan with alacrity, but we should not lie to ourselves about what we have done – and why — on the way out the door. That will only invite and enable the next imperial absurdity, if it hasn’t already done so.

    No need to thank me for the lesson.

  131. Oooo. Argumentum verbosium and argument by non-sequitur. Simply precious.

    Oh, I know the difference between those fallacies quite well, dingus. I don’t know what your formal training is in, but mine is in logic and argumentation.
    I’ve probably forgotten more about logic and argumentation than you’ve ever known as demonstrated by your now misuse of reductio ad absurdum in your defense. Pardon me. Condescending lesson.

    “I have not needed to set up any phony ‘straw man’ arguments because the logical absurdity of the stated apologetics reveal their bankruptcy upon simple examination.”

    Then you shouldn’t have materially misrepresented my position to attack if you claim you didn’t need to. By the way, I don’t care what you find absurd. That’s your opinion. I don’t care what someone who intentionally and materially misrepresents another’s position simply to attack it opines.

    “(1) Attacking and occupying a geographic territory because some ‘bad guy’ training has taken place there requires attacking and occupying other territories where similar, or even more relevant ‘bad guy’ training has taken place.”

    No. It doesn’t. That’s a fallacy of false equivalence. Not all targets, even those committing actions of similar nature, are of equal strategic and/or tactical value. We had information that the terrorists involved received substantial training in Afghanistan.

    “(2) Occupying a destabilized country for fear that its neighbor might lose control of its nuclear weapons logically requires us to invade and occupy the neighbor with the nuclear weapons, not the country without them.”

    I never mentioned occupying Afghanistan as part of my suggested strategy nor did Pakistan ever figure into my statements. My statements suggested limited engagement – destroying the camps and support networks we had actionable intelligence on and leaving Afghanistan with the promise to wipe them off the face of the Earth with little or no risk to our troops should they attempt to resume training terrorists deploying against us within their territory. You quote Hoh to counter me for statements I have not made. The straw man rides again.

    “(3) Our concern for remote and impoverished failed states overcome by drug lords and corruption logically demands that we concern ourselves even more with such states on our own southern border.”

    I never mentioned Mexico. Mexico didn’t pay for, train or man terrorist attacks on American citizens on American soil – an act of war. Again, you quote Hoh as a straw man.

    “As for your puerile fantasy that you have “broken my nose,” I retort that you have only broken wind, and in thinking that you smell a rat’s ass, you only smell your own.”

    No one claimed to have broken your nose. I tweaked your nose. I’m still doing it too judging by the hostility you’re displaying.

    “Now that admitted barb you may not call an “ad hominem” comment, because “ad hominem” means “to the man,” which excuses you from consideration.”

    Awww. Well isn’t that special. Again, my use of ad hominem against you was directly related to your initial use of it against me and it wasn’t a tactical decision but a social decision. Apparently you missed the part where I told you that if you act like a dick I’m going to treat you like you’re acting like a dick. You were acting like a dick before and guess what? You still are. At least you’re consistent. But feel free to try to impugn my manhood again. That was really funny.

    Also, I’m still really impressed with your ability to copy and paste items that have no bearing at all to your use of straw men or even what I said.

    “Nowhere does Mr Hoh castigate the Afghans for ‘ingratitude,’ as Professor Turley does.”

    Really. I love it when you try to shift blame too. If you have an issue Prof. Turley’s statements? I suggest you address them to him directly. I’m sure he’ll find your fundamentally fallacious and dishonest way of “arguing” as amusing as I do.

    Also, there is no need to thank me for pointing out how full of crap you are again. I don’t mind. Really.

  132. i am the mother of his 2 older children, nick is 8 and hope is 6..he also has a 10mth old little girl…he was a true hero..dennis would of done what he did for anyone…he made the ultimate sacrific..regardless of how u all feel about the war or our troops being there dennis volunteered to go..he didnt have to..yes i agree he should of been her with his family and children but he chose to go and help out..he is a great father and he loves his kids whole heartedly..the child he saved has a guardian angel now besides my kids…my kids understand what happened and they kno what there dad did..and they know he died a true whole hearted hero..it breaks my heart that he is gone and its gonna take some time to get through this..i dont want to see ppl argue over anything..and i thank u all for the kid words it means alot.we are worried about the person who was driving and we hope he or she gets the help they need.. we are not made at what happened we know it was an accident…we love him and always will he will always be in our hearts..
    RIP Sgt Dennis P Weichel
    9/2/81-3/22/12
    “FLY HIGH SUPERMAN”

  133. AW,

    Welcome to the Turley site…. There are a lot of good folks here longing for the best to come…… One day maybe their will be no need for wars…..

Comments are closed.