<< LOWRIDER LOWDOWN ~ MAIN ~ METABABABOLISM ALL MESSED UP >>
“BLOODY GREAT GUY”
An antidote to the Left’s dumb hatred:
Friends of Trooper David Pearce who was killed in Afghanistan on Monday have posted tributes on their Facebook websites to a man they describe as a “bloody great guy”.
Read on. Leftist loathing is nothing new to Maree S., the wife of a Vietnam veteran:
He and his mates had the whole gamut of leftist hate back then: wharfies holding up essential supplies here in Australia, pilfering mail and family gift parcels, notes from unionists wishing them death, being spat on and assaulted on return to Sydney etc.
His good friend Richie, who died metres away from him in 1967, has never had a proper hometown observance because it’s a Labor stronghold and the family was discouraged from glorifying Vietnam by the mining union minions who ran the town at that time. Last year, after the parents had died, his sisters contacted us and a few others and we finally had a memorial ceremony, 40 years too late.
When I showed the spouse these comments he just shook his head and said “Nothing’s changed, has it?”
The left is doing Vietnam all over again.
Our sincere condolences to David Pearce’s family and friends, and our thanks for his valour.
Amen.
Amen from here too.
Speaking of Viet Nam, this might be a good time to ask who Robert L. Brady is (apparently author of “Touched by Fire”). I saw his name and a donated copy of the book in the Australian display at a Viet Nam Veterans’ Memorial near Angel Fire, New Mexico, USA (not the main one in DC). I will mail Mr. Blair the pictures I took there last month.
The sacrifice of soldiers like David Pearce will be remembered long after the leftist trash run out of bile and spittle.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 10 10 at 06:33 PM • permalinkMaybe now we can replace the term “the Left” with something on the order of “those Stalinist assholes”.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 10 10 at 07:00 PM • permalinkI am correct to say that wharfies tried to held up supplies during war world 2?
Posted by Old school on 2007 10 10 at 07:20 PM • permalinkRough Men
There’s a character trait that’s decided by fate
Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won’t face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair,
Till they’re faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who’d know better than we,
Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.Yes, it seems there are some who’re determined by fate,
To possess not the courage to step up to the plate,
Who shrink from all threat because nothing’s worth war.
But how can they know lest they’ve been there before?
Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace,
To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.
Thank God we have stalwarts who’ll stand for us all,
Who will rise to the challenge at their nation’s call.The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won’t defend,
So their own unearned freedom won’t perish, won’t end.To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools.
To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools.Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66OldSchool,
Something here by Hal Colebtach on the subject (read down a way).Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 10 10 at 09:14 PM • permalinkIf only the hatred really WAS dumb,then we could hear the sweet chirps of crickets in the silence…
Posted by carpefraise on 2007 10 10 at 09:18 PM • permalink#8: I am correct to say that wharfies tried to held up supplies during war world 2?
Yes, you’re correct - see here:
]waterfront drama ...[/url]
First post by me.
s.r.intulom
Posted by s.r.intulom on 2007 10 10 at 09:55 PM • permalink# 8 & # 14
Sorry, fouled up the link - try again:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21750297-7583,00.html
s.r.intulom
Posted by s.r.intulom on 2007 10 10 at 09:57 PM • permalinkA Catholic peacenik friend of mine told me the other day that the Vietnam war was an asymetric contest between an industrial society (France/USA) and a fuedal society (Vietnam).
Iraq is and asymetric contest between an industrial society (Iraq)and a post-industrial society (USA/UK/AUS).
I found it really interesting to think about. The other big difference of course is that Vietnam happened during the Cold War in an atmosphere of international conflict which is just not the case now.
Anyway, hasn’t the USA/UK/Aus already won the conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Posted by Hero Schema on 2007 10 10 at 10:39 PM • permalinkthanks s.r. intulom
larrikin, you’re right! Terminal stupidity is always a possibility. I guess I was thinking about Iraq as an industrial society because of its once highly educated population, large number of engineers per head of population, successful economy pre Iraq/Iran war, extensive oil industry + manufacturing and technical capacity to produce (among other things) missiles (generally a sign of technical and manufacturing competence).
Of course, there are a lot of coffins and rubble around now.
Posted by Hero Schema on 2007 10 11 at 12:33 AM • permalinkRe #9: Superb. Thanks for that, gelfen.
Also: I seem to recall that Iran is now supplying non-improvised explosive devices to the Taliban. If so, maybe this great Australian was killed by an Iranian weapon?
Posted by Chris Chittleborough on 2007 10 11 at 02:30 AM • permalinkNo Chris, that was just Brendan nelson displaying his agitprop skills (and lack of ethics).
Brigadier Phil Winter, head of a counter IED taskforce is reported in the Australian today saying definitely that the device which killed Trooper Pearce was not Iranian, but almost certainly an old land mine.
Which countries still manufacture land mines, apart from the US? Russia, China?
Posted by Hero Schema on 2007 10 11 at 03:45 AM • permalinkMethinks we have a troll dipping its toe in the water here judging by the smarmy comments at #15, #18 etc.
Forty years ago, the same old shit was being trotted out to friends and families of the Aussie soldiers killed in the Vietnam war, declaring them tools of the capitalist pigs, running dogs barking at the behest of their imperialist masters . . . . ad infinitum
Straight from the communist manifesto.
Don’t you commo arseholes ever die or go away?
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 10 11 at 08:50 AM • permalink#18: That’s what 18 years of college will get you. Industrial/feudal my asymetric. Try free/totalitarian. Lot simpler, and truer. You “think” about it while better people fight the good fight.
Posted by dean martin on 2007 10 11 at 09:12 AM • permalinkAnd #21: Are you describing Germany circa 1939?
Posted by dean martin on 2007 10 11 at 09:14 AM • permalink#26 Sure Dean, Germany was an industrial society, but WW2 wasn’t asymetric. It was conventional except for the “total war” and “unconditional surrender” policies that were new at the time.
I thought this thread was about debunking the comparisons between Vietnam and present day. I agree they’re very different.
Posted by Hero Schema on 2007 10 11 at 09:58 AM • permalinkWay back in 1968 in Vietnam I used to ponder deeply about the asymetric warfare between competing idealogies and the relative merits of the feudal/agicultural society versus the military/industrial hegemony who were imposing their will on a nation of peaceful and industrious workers, toiling together for the greater good, hand in hand and ever forward to the great revolution that would one day lead the world to bliss.
Unfortunately, the mud, heat and jungle intruded upon these idealogically pure thoughts, and the light of the flares and machine gun tracers in the night sky obscured my vision of commo Nirvana.
Not to mention my platoon sergeant, the running dog imperailist lackey, who insisted I do soldier stuff instead of lying around in the sack and dreaming.
(Hi Spud)Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 10 11 at 09:59 AM • permalink#26 Sure Dean, Germany was an industrial society, but WW2 wasn’t asymetric. It was conventional except for the “total war” and “unconditional surrender” policies that were new at the time.
I thought this thread was about debunking the comparisons between Vietnam and present day. I agree they’re very different.
Yo, Hero! Welcome! Just a couple points here:
I agree, Vietnam and Iraq are different. But I would not characterize Vietnam as a “...asymetric contest between an industrial society (France/USA) and a fuedal society (Vietnam).” Vietnam was directly and heavily supported by China and the then Soviet Union, else North Vietnam would not have rolled tanks into South Vietname during the Tet Offensive (scroll down to “in March 1972, a dramatic change of strategy…”). Nor could they have shot down American fighters and bombers with their rifles; those surface to air missiles were not made from bamboo and black powder; same thing for the MIG fighters they scrambled. This is hardly an “asymmetric contest”
Instead, Vietnam was a proxy war fought by the Communists through their North Vietnamese allies (or minions if you like), and the North Vietnamese supported a guerilla war (what the strategists call a “low intensity conflict”, an oxymoron of sorts, as it isn’t “low intensity down in the foxhole, merely on the international level) in the south, using both proxy troops and NVA regulars. North Vietnam was the secure base of operations (except for the B52 raids), and South Vietnam the area of operations for the Communists.
Iraq is different in that we liberated a nation, and the terrorist campaign (with elements of a guerilla war) started in earnest, with limited support from sympathetic nations (Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia [although not as openly in SA]). There has been limited material support to the terrorists (except for the recent support of Iran for the stand off shaped charges and missiles); from the intelligence, much of the funding goes to pay for terrorist attacks, or to bribe officials. The initial attacks were in fact supported by scavenging from the huge stockpiles of arms and munitions leftover from Saddam’s buying sprees; think in terms of hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions, spread out all over the place. One huge effort back when I was “over there” was destroying and/or burying that crap. Probably still is, for that matter.
(In fact, the term “improvised explosive devices” was created because virtually all of the early ambushes were conducted using materials literally cobbled together to form a command detonated mine, usually effective.)
Al Quaeda has not been able to establish a formal secure base, comprised of territory that they can call their “capital” (think “Saigon versus Hanoi” and “Baghdad versus ??????”). This, in part, is why they kept on moving out of areas where the Coalition were aggressive in their operations. They may have thought that they were following Mao’s advice (“If the enemy advances, retreat; if the enemy retreats, advance”), but the truth is, they held no real territoriy.
In Vietnam, the Communists controlled large areas, and ruled as governments (not unlike the situation in Columbia). In Iraq? They’ve been on the run most of the time. They did try (Anbar Province, Fallujah”, but failed miserably. Even today, the trouble spots are more sectarian than terrorists…..although the terrorists do stir the pot mightily.
And, as you’ve noted, Iraq is not industrialized; their only real industry is petroleum production and processing. There might be some cottage industries, though, that I am not aware of. And we are trying rebuilding the Iraqi industries, not bomb them into the ground.
Have we won the Iraqi war? It’s better to say that we are in the process of winning the war. The war will be largely won by the Coalition when terrorism is not such a problem, and the country can begun to truly heal. The standing joke is (or was, back in 2005) that we know that we have when the first McDonalds opens in Baghdad. ;-P
(Caution: if you point this out to your Catholic peacenik friend, you will either witness an exploding head, or lose a friend.)
A final note: “Total war” in it’s classic sense is much older than WWII; try this for a primer, although it is Wikipedia, so grab a salt shaker.
For example (as Wiki notes), General Sherman is credited with specifically with using total war as a strategy to attack the enemy’s ability to conduct a war, not simply as a result of mobilizing resources for war. But WWII is an excellent example of total war ruthlessly applied.
“Unconditional surrender” is even older. WWII was different in scope, not simply concepts.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 11 at 02:35 PM • permalinkAnd before I forget (again!), I need to note that Trooper David Pearce is a bloody great guy in my book.
The leftards smearing him and other fallen heros? Not so much. And that’s being very polite about it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 11 at 02:55 PM • permalinkHi TRJ, well that was depressing. The only heartening thing was a suggestion that WW2 won’t happen again.
Do you believe that “Islamofascists supported by Russia, Iran and China” are the cause of trouble in Iraq?
What’s the role of Nationalism there?
I think David Pearce is a great chap too.
Posted by Hero Schema on 2007 10 11 at 07:34 PM • permalinkDo you believe that “Islamofascists supported by Russia, Iran and China” are the cause of trouble in Iraq?
Not Russia and China, at least not directly, although it’s for damn sure they aren’t helping at all.
Iran? Hell, yes! Qod members arrested in Iraq whilst coordinating with terrorists and insurgents, factory fresh anti-armor mines and missiles, supplied to terrorists for use against Coalition forces. No question about it.
The role of Nationalism? For Iran, Syria, Al Quaeda, very important to their strategic plans.
For the Coalition (all of them), it’s not “Nationalism”, it’s “survival”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 11 at 08:44 PM • permalinkI love how it doesn’t bother you guys at all that Tim’s “leftist peacenik sampler” was not in any way representative of “the left” - he had to trawl news.com.au comments to find his examples, since no lefty commentators or bloggers made any such comments - and you guys are off ranting against this strawman as if actually exists.
Hell, your wacky Westboro Baptist freaks (you know, the “god hates fags” nuts) cheer every time a US soldier is killed; should I “sample” their quotes as representative of christians?
Just a voice of reason.
Feel free to heap on the usual personal abuse now.
Hell, your wacky Westboro Baptist freaks (you know, the “god hates fags” nuts) cheer every time a US soldier is killed; should I “sample” their quotes as representative of christians?
I presume that you never read this, Jeremy. And the blogs that I read classify Fred Phelps as a flaming asshole worthy of contempt.
So thanks for the excellent example of leftie projectionism, whereby you accuse us of “misrepresenting” the left, while doing exactly the same to us wingnuts.
BTW, you generally earn that personal abuse, by being stupid, arrogant, and bigoted.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 12 at 11:36 AM • permalinkMr Lefty bleated:
Hell, your wacky Westboro Baptist freaks (you know, the “god hates fags” nuts) cheer every time a US soldier is killed; should I “sample” their quotes as representative of christians?
Ah yes, Phelps. Democrat turned gay-basher. Probably picked Christianity because he knew folks like you would seize upon it in glee.
Go on. Might as well drag out the chain-digger when you sink as low as you have.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2007 10 12 at 02:19 PM • permalink“So thanks for the excellent example of leftie projectionism, whereby you accuse us of “misrepresenting” the left, while doing exactly the same to us wingnuts.”
Actually, I was illustrating how ridiculous the line was, as well you know.
None of the “left” commentators or bloggers have been any more supportive of personal attacks on Pearce as you lot presumably are of Phelps.
“BTW, you generally earn that personal abuse, by being stupid, arrogant, and bigoted.”
*irony meter explodes*
Actually, I was illustrating how ridiculous the line was, as well you know.
No, I don’t know. How would I? Were there any sarcasm tags? Hmmmmm? For all anyone knows, you are back pedaling to cover a faux pas.
A small suggestion: try inserting “/sarcasm” or “/wingnut” into your posts, as appropriate. I often use “/sarcasm” or “/leftard” to indicate mocking of your brethren. It’s an often used technique, given that the left is often beyond parody.
As for your irony meter…..uh huh. If you ever had one, it was rendered ineffective from being in close proximity to you for too long.
And that is not sarcasm.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 12 at 08:21 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
MareeS is right, of course, the rabidleft desperately wanted Iraq to be Vietnam all over again. I think they’re completely unhinged by the fact that it’s not.