Wednesday, May 26, 2010

TheHayworth flap

What is lost in the discussion of the Hayworth was the context of the discussion. The discussion was about the legality of military action without formal declarations of war. In the case of Hayworth
he is factually wrong but substantively correct. In this case Congress affirmed a state of war after it had been declared by Germany. This is quite different than initiating a declaration of war. The substance of Hayworths point is largely correct. We declared war on Germany only after Hitler declared war on the USA.

I find it odd that the shrill lefties remain silent on yet another Democrat lying about serving in Vietnam. For the record I have never heard of anyone calling service in the reserves a dodge other than lefties talking about Quayle and GW Bush. Serving in the reserves is still honorable and we salute all veterans not named John Kerry.

18 comments:

Brooke said...

It kills me that the media will, and did, make up falsehoods about Bush's service. Yet, when a leftists outright lies about his and gets caught, nothing is said.

Anonymous said...

Most politicians it seems have either lied about their service or drastically exaggerated the extent of their time in the military. John Kerry seems to have joined the military for the sole benefit of preparing a political career back home.

This guy's lying makes me angry, but it doesn't diminish my anger that Bush received preferential treatment and that just about every warmongering creep in Washington never served in the armed services. Am I the only one that looks at those that pushed hardest for the Iraq war with disdain for their rabid support despite never serving in their lives?

I'd guess that hardly any of these folks ever experienced the bloody carnage and unspeakable fear true combat leaves one with. Again, McCain is an exception to this, as he did experience the hell of war. He also deviates somewhat in that most people that experienced what he did are more hesitant to have their country play the part of imperial superman throughout the world

Sadly, even McCain's noble service has suffered from being used as political capital too. This is nothing new, however. I just wish there was a veteran that didn't feel the need to use their service to win votes, allowing their heroism to speak for itself.

Ray

beakerkin said...

Ray

Vietnam was along time ago. Most of us are quite over it except for those who protested the war and defined their life by that moment.
The truth is no politician will ever run as a Vietnam war protester
even Kerry worked hard to avoid this part of his life.

Serving in the reserves is an admirable thing. Some reserve units do get mobilized. Student deferments were part of the system.

The problem is that protesters really lost the last battle which was the Kerry campaign. Kerry's actions and arrogance cost him big time. America always did love its vets only the shrill hateful voices
drowned us out for a short period of time.

Anonymous said...

The whole student deferment thing still gets to me. Allow me to talk of my father on this point. He was, like many teenagers then and now, screwing around and sucking it up in terms of his grades in college. He was drafted in 1969 and served in the Army as a forward observer, as well as doing some tunnel rat work. He's never been one to talk about his service or discuss how many "people he killed," which I've always admired. It may sound cliche to say, but he never sought a deferment because someone would have taken his place. He and other Vietnam vets I know were not in favor of the Iraq war because they could see our government had not learned anything about the failed policy of "containment" or how to actually win a war.

The war worshipers from 2003 by and large never served even in the reserves, let alone experienced real, bloody combat. The so-called neocons and regular conservatives that supported the Iraq war mostly sought deferment after deferment. Many of them conveniently played social justice liberal during the 60's, only to turn into war-mongering superstars later. It's a lot easier to rail against the Black Panthers and any social minority group her in the states than be forced to fight for your physical life in a foreign country. You may not like this opinion of mine, but I do not see any difference in levels of sleaziness between John Kerry or David Horowitz (or those just like him, like Limbaugh, Cheney, etc...) on this point.

Ray

beakerkin said...

Ray

Lets do this in pieces.

1) Most polls of active duty servicemen support the war. The Verterans I know with rare exception are also supportive of this action. I have run into an anti war serviceman but that is rare. Polls of veterans have shown more support than the public as a whole.

2) We salute your fathers service.
The protesters were never as popular as they portray themselves. They were lawless and frequently loathed.

3) David horrowitz lived as a Communist and saw the error of his ways. It takes more courage to admit you are wrrong and move ahead. He is neither sleazy nor deserves to be lumped in with Kerry. Careful of how you use the word Neocon as it is often a code word for Jews, which we know you are not doing.

4)On September 11 my city was attacked by terrorists and yours trully had a front row seat. This was not the first time we were attacked or I experienced this. The cast of charachters from the first bombing and second have overlap and actually lead back to the Kahane assasination.

Now when my country is attacked multiple times the majority of us recognized we are in a war. The exception was the traitorous Communists who held a Nurenberg style rally while the buildings were still burning and blamed the Jooooos. Comies always side with our enemies and want to see America
destroyed and hope to build utopia on its ashes.

5) There are no "war lovers". There
are those who recognize that a certain group has declared war on Civilization, those who think we should be handling this differently and commies who will reflexively side with any enemy.
The USA does not seek colonial gain
or proffit. If Muslims wanted to hand over the guilty it would have stopped long ago. They merely pay lip service about terror as terrorists slip into and out of countries openly.

6) The only people stuck in Vietnam
are the protesters who defined their existence by aiding our enemies in the Cold War. They were never popular and much of the nation still sees them as pariahs.

Even the people who served with honor went on to bigger things raising families and living otherwise normal lives.

7) As far as the Black Panthers they were a criminal drug gang that did commit murder. Most of society does not approve of their antics. They were all PR and zero substance.

Anonymous said...

"Careful of how you use the word Neocon as it is often a code word for Jews, which we know you are not doing."

Since we both know I'm no more an anti-semite than you are anti-Indian, I think we can safely go off the assumption that I mean neocon to mean what its definition is-mostly former leftists that had a "come to Jesus" moment during the Reagan years. They are less family values oriented than the paleos, with their main agenda being the spread of "democracy" as though it represented a new religion to be forced down the gullet the world over.

Too be sure, there are neocons that are of Jewish descent, just as their are many Christian evangelicals that are as well. I think the accusation of anti-semitism for using the term neoconservative is completely unnecessary. We both know that Jews are a diverse lot, capable of holding very divergent viewpoints. There are many Jews that would scoff and puke at the insinuation that calling neocons, well, neocons, is anti-semetic.

While I never said I am a fan of Buchanan, as he is what I would call a Euro/Western supremacist, I do see some sound legitimacy in his foreign policy philosophy. Do I take this to automatically mean throwing Israel under the bus? Nope. I see it as realizing that the world has many nations that are filled with scum bag leaders, and that the U.S. cannot be engaged in continual warfare. That's another thing I refuse to my core to concede: Criticism of Israel is not necessecessarily anti-Jewish, anymore than if you were to criticize an Indian group or tribal government over something would make you anti-Indian. Nations are comprised of human beings, and we know that we are capable of good as well as atrocious behavior at times.

You'll get no defense of Islamic countries from me either. Personally, after 9/11, the U.S. should have engaged Afganistan and Saudi Arabia, if anyone. Iraq was not a necessary war in any way shape or form. I've see too many friend's families lose their sons to an unnecessary war, a war pathologically pushed by scum that mostly all sought deferments from a similar war--Vietnam.

Ray

beamish said...

Ray,

Fighting a war on terrorism without taking out Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be like a "best of rock and roll of the 1950s" compilation that lacked any Elvis. Iraqi support for al Qaeda was documented and real even in the Clinton administration. We rolled up Khalid Shiekh Muhammed in Pakistan after his Iraqi intelligence handlers defected or were captured in Iraq. Iraq is the centerpiece of al Qaeda propaganda calling for a Baghdad Caliphate all the way back in the 90's.

We toppled a major supporter of Islamic terrorism and backer of al Qaeda and shifted Osama Bin Laden from calling for an Islamic empire ruled from Bagdad to crying about "global warming."

Iraq was a necessary war.

The_Editrix said...

"Iraq was a necessary war."

Yeah, because you say so.

Idiot!


"I'd guess that hardly any of these folks ever experienced the bloody carnage and unspeakable fear true combat leaves one with. Again, McCain is an exception to this, as he did experience the hell of war. He also deviates somewhat in that most people that experienced what he did are more hesitant to have their country play the part of imperial superman throughout the world."

Like most rabid homophobes are closet homosexuals, most embarrassing chair- (or piano stool) poopers are warmongers. For this piece I took some trouble to find a man who really knew about what he was talking.


"Vietnam was along time ago. Most of us are quite over it except for those who protested the war and defined their life by that moment."

Oh for Heaven's Sake Beak! You were hardly nine years old when the Vietnam War ended. Who are you to decide who is over it and who not. There must be thousands of traumatised families in your country whose father or grandfather(s) served in Vietnam.

I am not a pacifist. Robert A. Heinlein said it best:"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine 'that violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom." But that doesn't mean that a bloodthirsty old crone of any sex, who has never taken the slightest risk, should be allowed to warmonger.

Anonymous said...

Vietnam was along time ago. Most of us are quite over it except for those who protested the war and defined their life by that moment.
The truth is no politician will ever run as a Vietnam war protester
even Kerry worked hard to avoid this part of his life. XXXX WTF Kerry gave himself the medals then use his service to gain glory or office. Protestors is that like the ones who were too yellowbellied or cowards in that used the 'I dont want to Die in a unlawful WAR' Will kizz my azz to me It means that anyone who is afraid to die OK, yet to have the excuse of bullshyt where others went and Died or came home where all the sobs calling ME vile names and spittling on me well OK. But dont tell any NAM VET that IT was all past, why To be in combat and KILL and not be killed leaves anyone NOT the same. no matter the conflict WAR is insane and no dogma, govt or human has the right to say that any WAR is honorable, why unless one has been where I have been or seen what I saw then their input is null and void, no matter I could give a rats azz about 'what if' or "if they had' bullshyt. The NAM for those of us who left some of our guts, souls, friends KIA, will never forget or just make out like IT was all past. Point I lost my son a green beret in WAR in 2007 after 5 tours and all he would say to me when I asked him not to go, was 'I will never forget 9/11 or my friends killed in somalia or the two who won the medal of honor after they DIED. My premise is not to detract from other viewpoints or mindsets or to say hey I am right, bullshyt on that I just want whoever to know If you werent there or in combat then the glory hounds like kerry, who I fought with in 1971 when he and his so called baby killer vets came with their rambo bullshyt, or this Kerry is a chickenshyt glory hound, oh yeah two tours in the Nam and with 38 confirmed KILLS, that is I got them before they could GET me. I am a proud American Indian VET. and those who cant handle IT can kizz my azz, IE dr jackboot who gives views on NAM vets and never been in the SHYT, folks like him and other are just full of shyt, end of rant ta ta the shadow and jewish

The Pagan Temple said...

I would have never imagined I'd ever see the day when I would see Beamish comparing Saddam Hussein to Elvis.

beamish said...

Editrix,

Did America make Germany's UN-sanctions violating chemical weapons and missile technology customer in Baghdad fall down go boom? Awwww.

beamish said...

Pagan Temple,

You know toppling Saddam Hussein caused global warming, right? In 1992, Al Gore was quite a hissing trainwreck about leaving Saddam Hussein in power because of his international ties to terrorism.

Those ties to terrorism, specifically to al Qaeda, didn't dry up and disappear, no matter how much crack-smoking causes to say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Beamish, let me say that I do get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that Saddam and his sons were destroyed. I particularly enjoy speculating on the sound Saddam's head made as it popped off from being hanged.

That said, his regime was not the hot spot in any way shape or form for Islamic extremism. Saddam was a nominal Sunni that was seen as scum by the Bin Ladin's of the Muslim world. For as much a scum bag he was, his country was fairly secular (given the Middle East in general). I simply feel that it was an unnecessary war, one that horridly detracted from the Afghan war. The folks in favor of Iraq were for the most part notoriously absent from military experience; they're mostly professional speakers and intellectuals without real experience in military strategy.

Ray

beamish said...

Ray,

Politics do make for strange bedfellows, and "secular" Saddam Hussein supporting Islamic radicals like Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda against a common enemy is in that light not all that difficult to concieve.

But this association isn't imaginary at all. Osama Bin Laden's federal indictment issued by the Clinton administration details agreements made between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government to work together on the logistics and acquisition of weapons of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's government-run newspapers printed accounts praising Iraqi Mukhabarat intelligence officers for their collaborations with Osama Bin Laden's group in Pakistan. The Iraqi Mukhabarat under Saddam Hussein practically ran Sunni Islamist terror groups in Baluchistan Province as proxy fighters against the Shia government of Iran. Khalid Shiekh Muhammad, planner of the 9/11 attacks, was one such Baluchi terrorist with Iraqi intelligence handling him, and we did not locate and capture KSM until we aqcuired that information via the force of capturing Iraq's intelligence agencies and agents and the information they possessed. Again because Saddam Hussein's Iraq as infamous supporter (and harborer) of international terrorists had that information.

Besides being obscenely Editrix-level ignorant of history and the reality of pre-9/11 known and documented ties and and wartime discovered ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government going back to the early 1990s, the leftist tendency to never let a fact go unacknowledge extends to the flimsy logic of "to tackle Islamic terrorism one must only target Islamic religious theocracies." So "secular" terror states like Libya, Syria, and Iraq never get touched while we're pointlessly bombing Afghanistan or Iran and ignoring Saudi Arabia. Maybe we'd bomb relatively slightly religious Indonesia just for the fuck of it.

The fact remains that rolling up Iraq's intelligence agencies, by forceably conquering and occupying them on the ground collected information that led to cells in Guantanamo Bay filled with many major players in al Qaeda's operational leadership hierarchy, thus a decidedly weaker al Qaeda.

Iraq was a necessary war.

On the weak and inconsistent argument of not going to war without being led into it by someone with "military experience" (John Kerry's?), do we keep America under military control in case we ever have to go to war?

I'd expect that level of dense stupidity from leftists, but not from political classes with measurable critical thinking skills.

The Pagan Temple said...

There were valid reasons to topple Saddam. My main bitch wasn't going to war with him in the first place, it was the mess Bush made of it. Granted, that's not all his fault. To a great degree, he stupidly felt like he had to allow the left to tie one hand behind his back. That's still most his fault though. It took him four years before he finally got it right. If he had started out in 2003 like he did 2007 instead of waiting four years to come around to reality it would have been a completely different story.

Having said that, if I had to compare the importance of Saddam Hussein in terms of radical Islam to a rock star, I think I'd come up with a different comparison than Elvis.

Pat Boone, maybe.

The_Editrix said...

"Did America make Germany's UN-sanctions violating chemical weapons and missile technology customer in Baghdad fall down go boom? Awwww."

What is your point should you for once have one?

To clarify in case you have ass-umed it: I am not (NOT) against the war in Iraq, I am just taking exception to a grunting moron like you who thinks that talking from an (entirely delusional) great height without bothering to back his opinions with facts and some basic reasoning is sufficient.

beamish said...

Editrix,

Surely in your attempts to study history you were taught how to verify information.

Where do you want to start the discussion? With Karl-Heinz Schaab?

beamish said...

I guess Karl-Heinz Schaab's conviction for supplying Saddam Hussein with uranium enrichment technology is too hard for Editrix to argue with, despite his having the German government's approval to violate UN sanctions on Iraq for so many years. I should have saved that card to play later, after a few more rounds of being called an "idiot" and a "grunting moron" by a novice historian wannabe.