12.26.2007

One Of Time Magazine's Photos Of The Year

A member of the military accompanies Rachel Guy-Latham at a viewing of the body of her husband, Sergeant Thomas Lee Latham, 23, who was killed by an IED in Baghdad, Iraq in March.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

he was sacrificed for what reason? i forgot.
oh yea, i remember now, because some terrosists attacked us 9/11.
no , it was because someone had weapons of mass destruction. no, no , no.
oh well, at least it wasn't my child.

Anonymous said...

There is probably not much left to look at.

Anonymous said...

How are we supposed to protect ourselves if no one is willing to fight? Whatever happened to the American understanding that "freedom isn't free"? Are all American sacrifices for our freedom and liberty to be in vain because modern Americans don't have the stomach to battle our enemies? What do you think would happen if our guys weren't out there? Do you really believe that the 9-11 attack would have been the last one if we sat by passively and did nothing? Please don't give America to the enemy.

Anonymous said...

Where's Crud when you need him?

Anonymous said...

So, from your insinuations, 10:34, we can assume the following:

1. The ONLY reason we're in a war is because of Geo. W. Bush. There were ABSOLUTELY NO TERRORIST concerns before Pres. Bush took office, right? EVERYTHING was right with the world when Clinton was in office, right?
2. There are ABSOLUTELY NO TERRORISTS in the world who have vowed to destroy Israel and America, the "big and little Satans."
3. We can win the war on terror (providing there even IS one) with a Coke and a smile. Invite 'em over, recognize their Muslim holidays while eschewing our own precious customs, traditions and holidays. Teach all of the "good teachings" of the Muslims - except, perhaps, the ones where they want to "destroy everything we live and stand for."

You and people like you are so pathetic. Has Bush done everything right? Probably not. However, he's doing what he can to protect our country in an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy, something NO OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY has had to face. You remember the enemy, don't you? They're the ones who go on Al Jazeera (sp?) television and execute innocent men and women while wearing hoods to cover their faces like the dogly cowards they are! They're the ones who coerce their youth to be ready to die for their cause.
And you wanna hold their hand and be friends... you're a joke - an UNFUNNY one.

Collectionsite said...

I heard on the News today that Bush was quoted saying when he saw this picture ...

"HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"

jarhead said...

What a bunch of pussies. All of you that bitch and moan about WMDs and 9/11 don't even know the mindset of these brave individuals that die for our country, just like hundreds of thousands have before them. There are always the complainers who question the motives of the current administration ~ how about Kennedy and LBJ escalating Vietnam? How about Roosevelt in WWII? Come on... was Hitler really a threat to our way of life? Why do you not question the thousands of American lives "wasted" in WWII?

Oh, that's right, you never had the balls to join an armed service. It's so much easier to criticize when you're warm and comfy at your computer instead of being in the mix. Of course you have the right to criticize... because someone else put on a uniform and fought for that right whether or not they believed in the policies in place at the time.

You just don't seem to grasp that 99% of the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan could give a shit what you think about current policies. They're doing their jobs and understand the risks. They do it without question because it's what they love. It's an attitude that not many people have. Most of you whiny bitches are content letting the other guy do the dirty work while you sit around and complain about them dying in the service of their country.

The bottom line is that they don't care what you think.

They weep for your apathy and cowardice.

They don't care about your moral code, because they have one that you'll never be able to comprehend.

They know that you'll never put your life on the line for anything while they do it every day.

They get tears in their eyes when they hear the national anthem and see the flag while you only feel disgusted.

You'll never know. Ever. No matter how you think you can justify your slimy opinions, deep down you know you'll always be part of the problem. You're not strong enough to be part of the solution.

Oh sure, you'll come up with a glib response to this post, but it'll fall on the deaf ears of the heroes that are doing what you could never do in a thousand lifetimes. Face it. Some people were born to make a difference. and you're not one of them. The irony is, for every weak opponent of war, there is a counterpart taking up his/her slack on the battlefield. So go to sleep tonight praying to God that your counterpart is going to make it home.

In the words of a famous fictional Marine in an anti-war, anti-military movie: "...and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible, to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like Honor, Code, Loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something, you use them as a punchline. I have either the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post."

This may be the longest post ever.

Anonymous said...

Bring on the Sand trucks!!!
Wait, this isn't the snow post.

Anonymous said...

TO 11:37, I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, OR SAID IT ANY BETTER! BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT FOR SIX YEARS.

Anonymous said...

I have been an avid reader of this blog pretty much since it's inception. I haven't responded to any of the posts for a few years; however, I felt compelled to make a comment regarding this issue. I, like several of the readers of this blog, have never been in the military and have not placed my life on the line for this country on foreign soil. Although this is true, I am sickened to see that a large number of the people that read this blog have the audacity to question the decisions that are made for this country by the current administration. I'm sure each of you knows what's best for this country simply by watching the biased news reports. I too once allowed the news to change my opinion until I finally decided to talk to some of the people that have been fighting the fight and get their opinions about the direction that this war has taken. I was very surprised to find that the war is completely different from the perspective of someone that has been in the fight. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that this war was the right decision for this country. Jarhead, I don't know who you are, but I am assuming that you are, or have been, in some branch of the military. I would like to thank you for your service to this country. I hope that what you wrote opens the eyes of the few people that don't support our troops and helps them realize that they are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

Anonymous said...

55 Thousand parents went through the same thing during the Vietnam war compared to less than 4 thousand during this war. I think the democratic Vietnam war has a higher kill ratio.

goober said...

At least now we know what compationate conservatism and family values are.

Anonymous said...

2:04 This war is't over yet - the "kill ratio" could go higher. But I am hoping that it does not and praying that our young people can come home with their lives, limbs, and minds intact. I can't imagine gloating because the democrats had more military deaths. and, even if it were relevant, which it is not - Eisenhower put the first Americans in Vietnam. But Eisenhower, as he left office, saw the dangers ahead and reminded us not to let the war industrialists take over to promote war. Does no one have an objection to see how Halliburton (Cheney) has profited from this War? This was really displayed in the documentary "Why we Fight".

And more than 25% of our homeless are Vietman vets. I pray that this is not the situation in the next 20 years for our Iraqi vets.

Now I know that hatred is going to spew forth, but I think that we all should express our thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Good Post Jarhead...I want us out of there before my nephew has to go and I wish I could have the trust in our administration that you do....but tonight I will pray for my counterpart that is taking up my slack and to you I'll just say, Thank You...

Anonymous said...

Ike sent advisors and not troops. It was Kennedy that did not heed Ike's advice and started to send troops and escalate the war. How much did Johnson and Lady Bird profit from Vietnam? At this rate, it will take another 15 years to equal the deaths of Vietnam, but since you only listen to the mantra of the liberal weenie drive by media, you don't know that the war is winding down and we will be through with it soon. Happy Kwanza.

Anonymous said...

In November, 1959 there were 760 advisors in Vietnam. By 1963 there were over 12,000.

Anonymous said...

Great post, Jarhead! I have family in the military, and we don't sit around talking about whether the war is right or wrong in our opinion. To them this is their job. They have decided to make it their job, just like those of us who have normal jobs. Theirs is riskier than most, and they definitely deserve our respect and admiration for the safety they provide our entire country. When I see a soldier in uniform (wherever I am), I always try to thank them for what they're doing for our country.

Oh yea, love the line from A Few Good Men. That's one of my favorite movies!

Anonymous said...

Im not gloating. Just pointing out facts.

Anonymous said...

Let me first state that I did serve as a military officer overseas during the Viet Nam era. Our military is designed to protect our nation and our allies. It is really good at breaking things and destroying the enemy’s military. It is not designed to be a police force for foreign civil control.

This Iraq war was unnecessary and waged against the wrong enemy. We did have cause to go after the nucleus of the al Qaeda in Afghanistan – and we have even failed in completing that mission in over 6 years (longer than we were involved in WWII). The excursion into Iraq was wrong then and we've since paid a huge price in $$$$ and a significant loss of life and limb of our service people.

Folks, we have always been at risk of sneak attacks by dedicated terrorists. We remain at risk. But our life and country goes on. The fear mongering by this administration has been unreasonable and unjustified. When intelligent military and diplomatic policy is unavailable, this administration resorts to instilling fear of boogie men. To cover their collective a$$es, they play with emotions using the color coded terror alerts (remember them? What are we now – yellow, red, orange or purple?). Hyping fear is not an intelligent means of dealing with threats.

Our soldiers are well prepared to defend our nation. However, they are being debilitated by their misuse in Iraq. We (and now the rest of the world) now know our military is not prepared to suppress violence and civil disputes all over the world simultaneously. Clinton effectively applied sufficient force with a true coalition in Bosnia. Bush’s team has failed time and again at every opportunity in Iraq – until finally, General Patraus was given command. And even Patraus cannot resolve the basic political dysfunction and divisions in Iraq.

I know many in Wise Co are eager to support whatever Bush does or says. However, this loyalty does not make it right. The rest of the country and the world now recognize the many errors of Bush policy and the vast problems Iraq portends for the future. And – bottom line - hollering at each other on this blog won’t make any difference. Realistically recognizing the facts might.

doug mac said...

I am a great fan of the occupation (it's not a war!) of Iraq. We do have this big expensive military, and to not take it out and see how it works periodically would be negligent. And the young men with excess testosterone and the correct amount of patriotism who have chosen the warrior profession are well off for having such an opportunity to serve honorably. And the death, taken statistically, is negligible.

What you armchair generals(AKA liberal weenie pacifists) fail to grasp is this:

We as a country agreed to maintain a professional military. We pay for it daily. With our money we have educated in the art and history of warfare legions of officers. Many of these among the brightest our society has to offer. If they engage in a giant global chess game looking years, even decades into the future, we need to rely on their judgement. Civilian second guessing through the mass media is suicide.

Oh, and for those of you who lament the monetary side of global politics I have one question: Why do you get up and go to work daily?

Anonymous said...

Did Clinton go to the UN and ask for approval to bomb the hell out of poor innocent people in Bosnia? He was trying to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing. They really showed their appreciation for it in a strange way. How long have we had troops deployed there now? Are we in a quagmire there too? Hill Billy said we would only be there a year.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm... let me guess... "a military officer serving overseas in the Vietnam-era..."

So you were in the Air Force stationed in Germany in 1975? That definately makes you a foreign policy expert ~ but not a Vietnam Veteran as your ambiguous wording makes it sound!

So, in your "vietnam-era" service "overseas", did you think that the VC were a legitimate threat to the US?

Were the Chinese/Koreans/Soviets a legitimate threat to the US in Korea?

Was it necessary to send US troops to Bosnia? Were we threatened there? How about Somalia? Is that near the US?

The point is that there is never a good time to go to war but we still do it... Republican and Democrat alike. Nobody likes it, someone always profits from it and we're all lucky that someone is willing to go in our stead without questioning whether it's right or wrong.

And there are some Vietnam Vets out there that should take exception to your alluding to the fact that you are indeed a true Vietnam Combat Veteran with your stupid "Vietnam-era, overseas service" BS.

Good day to you, sir!

Anonymous said...

4:10 & 4:13 -
1) Yes, we have a mostly effective military. It has been the lousy civilian direction of that military - using the military improperly and NOT actually listening to military experts that has caused the problems.
2) No, Clinton did not go to the UN - he went to NATO and NATO acted together. Yes, we still have some troops involved there. It has been evaluated as a qualified "success." BTW - we have had exactly 0 (zero) US military deaths there. And those Muslim there are quite thankful for NATO's action. Please acknowledge that not all Muslims are terrorists or hate the US. You may find it easier to believe broad brush generalities, but that propaganda is just not true.

Anonymous said...

So if Bush had just gone to NATO instead of the UN, you would approve of the war. What kind of liberal weenie justification is that? You didn't seem to defend Clinton on all the innocent lives that were lost to all of his bombings.

Anonymous said...

4:47 - I did not serve in WWII, Korea or Desert Storm. I served during the Viet Nam war (like Geo. Bush) but I served overseas. All correct statements. What’s the problem?

As for your VC question: I’d say they were NOT a “legitimate” threat to the US. They were indigenous rebels – assisted by the government of N. Vietnam. You could compare the VC to our own revolutionaries who attempted to throw the British colonial oppressors out of our country in 1776. So we spent vast resources and lives in Vietnam, which was a local civil disturbance that had no direct impact on US interests. 30 years later Vietnam is stable, has invaded no one, is the fastest growing economy on the planet, and is an active trade partner of the US.

The Korean War was started by an invasion by the N. Koreans. The UN voted to oppose that and we helped push them out of S. Korea. China entered the war later when McArthur threatened to cross their boarder (resulting in Truman firing him). At the time, the Chinese were not a direct threat to the US, while the USSR certainly was. So what’s your point? We recognized USSR as a nuclear threat but we did not invade them. And now China is becoming our biggest trading partner and holder of most of the debt that we’re piling up paying for this current war.

We went into Bosnia as part of a NATO force. We were not threatened, but NATO security was. It seems to have worked out. Somalia was a unilateral “humanitarian” effort. If you want an opinion, I’d say both were justified but Bosnia was well conceived and executed and Somalia certainly wasn't.

I never claimed to be a Vietnam vet, are you? But I did serve and actually served where I was sent. I just wish so many of the civilian advisors to President Bush (almost none of whom had any military experience at all) would have followed the expert military advice about where and how to apply American military power.

So do you have a point?

wordkyle said...

The Cheney/Halliburton comment above is hilarious. After seven years of the Democrats and the media doing everything they can to destroy everyone in the Bush administration -- especially Dick Cheney -- Cheney is still as strong as ever. All the Bush-haters have is the same old tired canards.

Bush could find a cure for cancer and his opponents would claim he didn't do enough for the poor.

The year 2000 is when Liberals went off the deep end, and they can't seem to find their way back.

Anonymous said...

Geeeezz, I smell a Reagan RIP and/or a Wordpyle in this blog comment section somewhere.

And now for my opinions:

This war is WRONG, never should have happenend.....

Bush is an idiot, a puppet controlled by greedy evil doers.....it's all about OIL, folks, or even more such evil things that we cannot comprehend.

And for those families with "young men (or women) with excess testosterone and the correct amount of patriotism who have chosen the warrior profession", I pray that your son or daughter arrives back home totally intact, both physically and mentally, so that you don't have to depend on the government to help you all deal with this horrible, horrible mess that should have never happened in the first place. Hopefully, they can all get high-paying jobs on an oil derrick somewhere close around here.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "the war is winding down and we will be through with it soon"

Funny!!! I believe this is the same phrase used by General Westmorland years before the actual end of the Vietnam War in his attempt to get more troops.

jarhead said...

All of the armchair policy gurus are making my point even stronger... all show, no go.

They can talk their way around anything. It's so easy to have an opinion when it's spoonfed to you by what you see and read and hear secondhand but never experience.

It's just as well that they remain "anonymous" ~ they would never last in a military unit.

Just my $.02 ~ again...

Anonymous said...

7:30, Troop casualties were on their way up when Westmoreland said it, and Iraq troop deaths are dramatically down when I said it.

Anonymous said...

Liberals = cowards = apologists. Always have....always will.

wordkyle said...

"Bush is an idiot!" - repeated endlessly by the Liberals.

Yet this "idiot" managed to win two presidential elections and in the last year humiliated the Democrat-controlled Congress, forcing them to concede to almost every request he's made. Have there ever been more ineffective leaders than Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Where are all the promises the Democrats made for when they took over Congress? A year in power and they've accomplished...what?

"Idiot" - snort.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, don't sell the liberal weenies short. They did manage to raise the minimum wage that lifted millions out of poverty. Score one for the little guy.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with wordbile on one point - Pelosi and Reid have performed poorly. However, as the wordbile well knows but doesn't mention, the reason congress has been so unsuccessful - the VETO. To get anything meaningful thru the senate or even discussed it takes 60 votes. The Democrats have 51 or 52. This situation will continue for another 1 year and 25 days when the electorate flushes out enough Republican senators to provide those 60 votes. Then we'll see some major congressional action - we can only hope it is more positive than the current gridlock.

Anonymous said...

To; 2:52 - If you had read my post instead of seeing immediately that I did not fit into your viewpoint, you would have noticed that I did not use the word "troops" when referring to Eisenhowers action - I said Americans. Not all Americans are troops.
but the only words you seem to know are the facetious: 1."Happy Kwanza and 2.liberal weenies". If all Americans had the the hate you show, we would never be out of war.

To: 6:20 - thanks for your objective facts. If we could all talk objectively like you, we might find some common ground.

Anonymous said...

11:16, But Pelosi promised all the nations problems would be solved in less than 100 days. Pelosi lied, weenies cried.

Anonymous said...

The opposite of "liberal weenies" might be "neoconservative weenie schnitzels" Heil?

wordkyle said...

11:16 - Do we remember the magic "100 days" of Pelosi's promises? Remember how she redefined 100 days as "100 days on the clock?" And then "100 days of time that we work on the things I said we'd do in 100 days?" They've now had almost a year.

Your point is correct -- Bush did use the veto threat to keep Pelosi and Reid in check. Despite his low poll numbers (and Congress's were lower,) and his perceived political weakness, he humiliated the Democrats in 2007. They gave him everything he asked for; moreover, they hardly advanced their own legislative agenda at all.

The political situation will indeed change in the next election, but it won't change what happened to congressional Democrats in 2007. Bush owned them. Let's hope that diehard Democrat voters will remember the continuous broken promises their party leaders made.