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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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….
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.
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.
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.
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?
As someone who knows Dennis. He was a hero to his family and friends. we will never forget him.
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.
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.
For now, just look for the avatar which is a picture I took in my backyard. ~Blouise
——————————
that is a beautiful backyard!
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.
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…….)
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.
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.
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.