Sometime ago, Wirt wrote these words:

"Perhaps you would like to outline for the assembled list the totality of
your service in support of the security of the United States, Denys, either
in military directly or as a civilian DOD employee, other than of course
strongly advocating to anyone who will listen that someone else's child be
sent off to some foreign war for your perverted entertainment."

Having finally found some free time, I reply as follows:

The population of the US is 300 million people, which means that less than
1% of the population is in the military, in any branch.  According to your
logic, 99% of the people are not allowed to express an opinion in support of
the military.  As you may recall, I immigrated to the US at the tender age
of 30, somewhat late in life for a military career, and being a resident
alien precluded me from any DOD work.  I became a citizen 10 years ago, but
according to your logic I still cannot express an opinion in support of the
military.  On the other hand anybody is allowed to slander the military.

Interesting.

I take the last bit of your statement to be some sort of a slam about my
knowledge of military hardware.  I also remember someone else being amazed
that we spent time identifying the weapon that destroyed the house.  It
seemed so detached, so "perverted".

It is neither detached nor perverted, it is informed.  In a time of war, the
first victim is the truth.  The terrorists have discovered that America's
(and the rest of the Western world) public opinion is easily swayed by
images.  They also know that the antique media is firmly, if not totally on
their side, at least against the present administration and the military.
So, when the US military bombs a house in which terrorists where seen
entering, the reports come out that only women and children were killed; the
US military is now employing smart bombs costing $200,000 that only kill
women and children, which is why these bombs are so expensive.

There was a photo published recently in The New York Times that purported to
show a piece of a US missile that had destroyed a house in Pakistan, where
once again only women and children where killed.  The ordnance shown was an
old 155mm shell, but the NYT was "fooled" once again by the terrorists into
publishing their propaganda.  It took some time, but the NYT changed the
caption on the picture, without acknowledging their error.

We have long ago found out that when such an event occurs, the terrorists
will immediately remove the bodies of men killed or wounded in these places,
leaving the women and children, if any, to be discovered by rescuers.  We
also know that the terrorists always have plenty of "expendable" women and
children in their midst.

For the record, I would much rather have all the troops back home, where
they could be training for eventualities that would never come.

However, that is not the world we live in.

Over the decades, I have frequently competed alongside Canadian and US
servicemen and women, at various shooting events and I plan to continue even
as age creeps in.  I also plan to continue supporting them in any way I can.


Last week as I was returning home to Houston from Detroit, I stopped at The
Irish Pub in terminal B for a bite.  I was with another member of this list
and we had some time to kill before our flights.

The place was about half full and we sat at a table in the middle of the
pub.  As we sat down we parked our notebook bags and other carry-on junk on
the floor next to us.  The gentleman sitting at the next table moved his
rucksack aside to make some room.  I suggested that he might want to just
plunk in on the empty chair, which he did and then went back to his meal and
newspaper.

I looked at the rucksack a little closer and said simply: "It looks
military."  (He was dressed in civilian clothes but the rucksack definitely
looked military in desert camouflage.)  He said simply, "It is."  I then
asked "Are you in the military?" To which he responded "Yes, I am."

I waited a little bit then I asked him "Are you coming in, or going out?"
He replied, "I'm on my way back to Iraq to complete my second tour."  And
then he looked at me as if to gauge my reaction to his announcement.

I said something to the effect "I want you to know that I appreciate all you
are doing for us, for the country.  I support you and I appreciate you more
than you will ever know."  His entire demeanor changed at that point.  He
realized that he was talking to a friend.

He opened up and for the next half-hour, he told us how proud he was of his
service, how important it was for him to know that people actually supported
him and wanted him to succeed in his mission.  He also told us how angry and
disgusted he was with a media that never reported on the good things that
were happening over in Iraq.  He described some of his duties over in Iraq
which consisted of traveling to villages, asking the local honchos what was
required and then coming back the next day with the goods.  He respected the
Iraqi people; they appreciated the US efforts and they were very optimistic
about the future.

The only black cloud was, as I said already, the way the media was reporting
the news, distorting the situation and actually supporting the terrorists.
He also talked about how the Democrats Leadership and the media were helping
fuel this terrorist aggression with their reports and their defeatist
attitude.  His exact words, which he repeated several times, were:

"They are killing us."

By "they" he was referring to the legacy media and the defeatists in
Congress.  He made no bones about it, he was livid about it.

What exasperated him the most was the fact that he and his friends were
putting their lives on the line so these people could talk "sh*t" about the
military and the administration.  

I didn't have the heart to inform them that these defeatists actually
considered their support of the enemy as "patriotic."

We talked about how they would get stuff through anysoldier.com, to which I
replied that we had sent many packages and were going to send more.  The
soldiers love to get books, he informed us.  I told him we had also sent
DVDs and he said those were great to get also.  (It would have been neat to
find out that he had been the recipient of one of our boxes, but it was not
the case.)

He also told us that his greatest fear was that they would be pulled out
before they could finish the mission.  I reminded him that for the time
being the defeatists in Congress were in the minority.  All we had to do is
make sure that situation did not change.

As my departure time was approaching rapidly, I told him that I now had to
leave, and I wanted to tell him once again that I and many others supported
him and the other servicemen anywhere in the world but especially in Iraq
and Afghanistan.  As I stood up, he did to, we warmly shook hands and I
wished him Godspeed.

You can be sure that I reflected on this chance encounter on the flight
back.  Here was a man (not a child) in his late 20s, or early 30s, very
dedicated to his job and his country, who spoke his mind and all he asked
was that he be allowed to finish the job.  I was also struck by his initial
wariness when I first asked him if he was in the military.  I cannot believe
that in this day and age, someone fighting the terrorists directly would be
wary of a civilian in his own country.  I was very glad that his last
meeting with his fellow countrymen before flying to Iraq was a supportive
one.

Herr Baier also asked why the Democratic Party is regarded as unpatriotic.
When the party's platform and raison d'etre is to undermine the troops, as
reported by this gentleman above, then there should be no surprise the Dems
are viewed as defeatists and unpatriotic.

This is not to say that everyone who votes Democratic is unpatriotic,
defeatist and a terrorist sympathizer, far from it.  On the other hand, all
unpatriotic, defeatists and terrorist sympathizing voters will vote
Democrat.

Especially when the last Democratic presidential candidate called the troops
in combat murderers and pillagers in a deposition before Congress in 1972
and again in December, 2005 TV interview: "... and there is no reason, Bob,
that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in
the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking
sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs,
religious customs, whether you like it or not."

Especially when Senator Dick Durbin (D-Al Qaeda), accused our troops of
being Nazi storm troopers, on the floor of the Senate.

Especially when John Murtha(D-PA), pushed a resolution to a vote in the
house, calling for the troops to cut and run from Iraq.  Interestingly
enough he didn't even have the courage of his own conviction and voted down
his own resolution.

Especially when the former US Attorney General in a Democratic
administration, Ramsey Clark, goes over to Iraq to help with the defense of
Saddam Hussein.

Especially when in a radio interview, DNC chairman Howard Dean was quoted as
saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is
just plain wrong,..."

When we get a tape purportedly recorded by Osama ben Ladin, we find that
most everything he says is simply an echo of the DNC, one doesn't need to
wonder anymore.

Denys

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *