Father and Son to Fight Together in Iraq
Vietnam Vet Father, 57, and Son, 34, to Serve in Same Marine Unit
By GEOFF MORRELL - ABC News


Feb. 20, 2005 — When Chris Phelps left Camp Lejeune, N.C., for Iraq last week, he said goodbye to his family, but the 34-year-old Marine major told his father he would see him shortly.

That's because Master Gunnery Sgt. Kendall Phelps, a 57-year-old music teacher from Silver Lake, Kan., will be joining his son there next month.

Last Fought in Vietnam

Members of the 5th Civil Affairs Group, the Phelpses will spend seven months together in Al Anbar province, one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq.

"I'm psychologically imbalanced, " joked Kendall Phelps, a Vietnam Veteran who last saw combat 37 years ago.

He reluctantly retired from the Marine Reserves in 1999, but after Sept. 11 Kendall began trying to re-enlist.

He became even more determined when Chris' Marine unit reached Baghdad in March 2003 and he e-mailed a photo home to his dad with the caption, "Wish you were here!"

"I just felt like I had all this knowledge and training," recalled Kendall. "And here I am sitting at home eating Post Toasties while young devil dogs like my son are over there. And I just needed to be a part of it."

Last November, Kendall's campaign paid off. He was invited to join a Marine unit helping Iraqis rebuild their society. It turned out to be the same unit his son is in.

Chris said he then asked his dad, "Why do you want to do this?" and his dad's response was, "I'm a Marine. I'm an American. I'm patriotic. I believe in what we're doing. And I wanna make a difference."

Rare Type of Family

It is rare for members of the same family to serve together in the same unit. Ever since World War II, the military has discouraged it. But if relatives volunteer to serve together there is no policy against it.

"I think they will take comfort in the fact that they're both there, but for us it will be twice as hard," said Kendall's wife, Sherma.

Picadilly: My point is that I have no problem with DISSENT....and I also will defend those who DISSENT from YOUR idea of what everyone ought to think and write. If you truly stand for the right for a person to hold a dissenting viewpoint, then you can not lambast, mock or belittle those who DISSENT FROM YOUR WORLDVIEW! If you engage in this action, instead of addressing the issue, then you are no better than those you oppose.

You cannot weigh dispatches from Dhar Jamal with any more credence than those from Michael Yon...and you cannot weigh one soldiers personal story against the war, with a soldier's story in support of the war. Policy is one thing, but disallowing a soldier, or any person, to support the troops in the way HE OR SHE finds most helpful is just as authoritarian as its opposite.

If you believe that we should support our troops by withdrawing them, that's your right. Do not expect that everyone MUST feel that way, and may NOT deviate from that position. Do NOT expect that you may come here to read ONLY the stories of soldiers who oppose the war. That' is demogoguery short and simple!

Be careful not to BECOME YOUR OWN ENEMY in an effort to defeat that enemy!

Only because you ask Fly...

Exactly how I previously described these stories, raw bits and pieces assembled to suggest that this is the way things should be: propaganda.

Is there anything this Dad may have possibly forgotten to justify his decision ?
Would someone ever speak like that ? It sounds like he's simply repeating some line he learned because it looks good in print.

Public Affairs reporters pick up these short bits and pieces, one-liners advertisement slogans because they are easy to remember, and advertisement has given these lines some cool and smart intonations and physical expressions to mimick while saying them.

What makes these stories incredibly boring is the same overused slogans and ready-made answers to express an attitude or to show off the values the actors of the story hold. Like President Chimp, Public Affairs don't seem to grab nuance either. All these people depicted in the stories look alike as they are completely interchangeable. What's the word for it ? Ah yes, CLONES. They talk the same way, think the same way, as if their american cultural heritage, at least what Public Affairs wants to show, is restricted as to match the same personality complexity as President "No-Nuance" Chimp.

So there, you have the word, "restriction". Restriction of ideas and of words, to allow those values promoted through propaganda to artificially stand above others. The problem is, to praise some of these values requires to erase anything that can remind of competing values, particularly when that value is simply "difference" itself. That is why everybody looks alike in these Marine Public Affairs reports.

heart the give and take is fairly equal, and yes I've given mine when pushed, I would hope we could do without any of it at all. I'm willing.

What you are saying is that it is allright if I pee on Old Glory if I claim it is to support the troops.

Dissent has NEVER been one of my targets on this forum.

My targets in this thread are Lies and Embezzlement.

But if you attempt to make dissent prevail, don't expect a free ride.

Well if Lies and Embezzlements are your concern why don't we see anything from you condemning Al Jazeera, the DailyKOS, Dahr Jamail, or Counterpunch? All pure propaganda but we never hear a peep from you that those sources might well be unabashed horse "expletive deleted".

Oh, I get it, my propaganda is bad, your propaganda is good? My propaganda should be attacked , your propaganda is immune to criticism? Can we say "in a pig's eye"?

I have found this to be true from all sources involved...from Michael Moore, to Alexander Cockburn, to Counter-Terrorism studies and to Iraqis themselves. Let me know if you need more proof and I will get it from whatever brand of the political spectrum you like. I can even provide you with a link to the recruitment tapes for foreign jihadis to go to Iraq, and their taped pre-martyrdom messages.
********************************************************
May 12, 2005
Osman said: “The foreign Islamists and the ex-Ba’athists and regime people have nothing in common ideo-logically, but tactically they both want to disrupt and destroy the new situation in Iraq, and they are prepared to ally to that end.’’

One Iraqi intelligence officer said the failure to secure Iraq’s borders had allowed many young men from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, Iran and Egypt, to come to Iraq to “achieve martyrdom’’.

“Cooperation between these foreign militants and the domestic insurgency, however, is also in danger of turning the homegrown resistance into a breeding ground for a major jihadi movement.’’

He said the testimony of scores of non-Iraqi Arabs who had been arrested in Iraq pointed to the network of suicide bombers coming mostly from Syria, and he claimed that the Syrian secret service was involved in their training.

Syria has come under repeated pressure from the US to shore up the gaping holes along its porous border with Iraq, but vehemently denies any involvement in the preparation of suicide bombers. A recent US offensive near the Iraqi-Syrian border was designed to disrupt the flow of fighters into the country.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?artic..._international/
***********************************************************
Report: Mess-hall suicide bomber was Saudi
Arab newspaper says medical student killed 22 people The Associated Press
Updated: 7:51 p.m. ET Jan. 3, 2005CAIRO, Egypt - The suicide bomber who killed 22 people when he blew himself up in a U.S. mess hall in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was a Saudi medical student, an Arab newspaper reported Monday.

The Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat identified him as 20-year-old Ahmed Said Ahmed al-Ghamdi, citing unnamed friends of the man’s father. The friends said members of an Iraqi resistance group contacted al-Ghamdi’s father to tell him his son was the suicide bomber who carried out the Dec. 21 attack, the deadliest on an American installation in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6782944/
***********************************************
March 1, 2005:
The Islamic militant part of the resistance appears to have an endless supply of suicide bombers - most of them non-Iraqi - willing to die while staging attacks. But that also means an extensive network run by Iraqis capable of providing intelligence, vehicles, explosives and the means to detonate them.

A source in Baghdad said: "Sabawi was in Hasakah. The Kurds captured him and handed him to Iraqi Kurds in the north". They were probably members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party which has many supporters among Syrian Kurds.
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-enders010305.htm

June 1, 2005 -- WASHINGTON - More than 40 percent of the suicide bombers dispatched by al- Zarqawi to attack Iraqis and U.S. troops hailed from Saudi Arabia, according to a new study. Only 9 percent of the bombers were Iraqis, said the report by the SITE Institute, a counterterror group.

The SITE Institue recently discovered a "Martyrs' List" that [ terror leader Abu Musab] Zarqawi posted on a Web site to commemorate the fanatics who were recruited as foot soldiers in the group's deadly campaign of car bombings and other attacks to undermine Iraq's transition to democracy. An analysis of 107 bombers whose names and backgrounds Zarqawi's group published revealed that 45 of the dead extremists, or 42 percent, came from Saudi Arabia, said Rita Katz, SITE director.

Many other bombers were Syrian, Kuwaiti, Palestinian, Afghani, Libyan and even French, while only 10 of the attackers, or 9 percent, were Iraqi-born.

"What we see here is there are a lot of people who appear to be quite well educated leaving universities, good jobs and families to go to Iraq to fight the jihad," Katz said.
reprinted here http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006073.php
********************************************
Is it a coincidence that the majority of suicide killers in Iraq are non-Iraqi Arabs, while we are yet to hear of a non-Palestinian suicide killer in Palestine? Perhaps we will hear of new Fatwa that considers Iraqis who seek to build their country and democracy a greater threat to the future of the Arab Umma (nation) than the Israeli occupiers! Else, how could this amazing ability to stop the infiltration of Arab suicide killers from the neighboring countries into Palestine could be justified, while they easily flow into Mesopotamia? What is the secret to the enthusiasm to kill Iraqis? Do they want to liberate Palestine by killing Iraqis; just as Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait with the pretext of liberating Palestine?

The message behind the assassination of Samir Kassir to the Lebanese and Syrians is the same message the killers in Iraq send to the Iraqis and Arabs: do not dream of freedom, it could kill you… Would Samir and Hariri be assassinated had it not been for Lebanon to be on the verge of realizing its dream? Would the suicide-bombers flood into Iraq had it not been on the verge of realizing that same dream?

Al-Hayat, June 6, 2005
retrieved at: http://www.tharwaproject.com/English/index...d=2596&Itemid=1
*********************************************************
Monday, February 28, 2005
By Donna Abu-Nasr
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A few weeks after his son Ahmed disappeared, Abdullah al-Shayea got a call from an Iraqi official saying the 19-year-old was an intended suicide bomber who barely survived blowing up a fuel tanker in a deadly Christmas Day attack in Baghdad.

Ahmed is one of many Saudi youths — estimates run from the low hundreds to as many as 2,500 — who have slipped into Iraq in the past two years, often traveling through Syria to join other Arab and Muslim recruits eager to translate a fiercely anti-U.S., Al Qaeda-inspired ideology into strikes against Americans and their Western and Iraqi allies.

"I was stunned," said al-Shayea of his son's role in the explosion, which killed at least nine people just hours after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) made a surprise visit to the Iraqi capital. "I had no clue he was even thinking of going there."

Some go because an aggressive anti-terror campaign in the kingdom has made it harder for them to operate in Saudi Arabia, others because they don't think it's right to risk killing Saudis and Muslims while attacking Western targets in their own country. But all of them believe their mission is a jihad (search), or holy war, that a true Muslim should not forsake.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1550
****************************************************

Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis By Reuven Paz(PRISM Series of Global Jihad, No. 1/3 – March 2005) Introduction:
Since the end of the major phase of the war in Iraq and the collapse of the former Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in May 2003, Iraq—like Afghanistan in the 1980s, and Bosnia and Chechnya in the 1990s—has turned into a magnet for Jihadi volunteers. Unlike the case of Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya, the vast majority of the volunteers that streamed into Iraq are Arabs, while only few fighters stem from non-Arab Muslim countries or emigrant communities in the West. One possible reason for the predominantly Arab composition of Jihadists in Iraq may be the fact that Iraq is an Arab country; occupied by the “Crusaders,” thus stimulating heightened degree of Arab solidarity among Arab supporters of Jihadi-Salafi individuals and groups. An additional reason may be the ease with which Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, or Syrians can cross the borders to Iraq. Furthermore, the Sunni Jihadi groups, and many other Islamists, even from within the Saudi and other Arab Islamic establishments, view the insurgency in Iraq as a legitimate Jihad not only against the Americans, but against the Shi`is as well.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RGkbD...non-iraqi&hl=en
*****************************************************************
SUMMER 2004
We have some statistics to help us sort through this morass. Approximately 300 individuals carrying non-Iraqi passports have been arrested in the past 14 months, according to senior U.S. military sources. The first wave of these “foreign fighters” (between April and October 2003), was mainly composed of Arab volunteers from neighboring countries, most of them Palestinian refugees enlisted to enter the struggle either by the remnants of the Iraqi mukhabarat or any number of terrorist organizations before and during the war in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The second wave, which seems to be growing in size, is composed mostly of Islamic militants recruited throughout Europe and the Middle East and then sent to Iraq through the same elaborate human pipeline used by the mujaheddin to send volunteers to the Balkans, Chechnya and Afghanistan in the 1990s. On November 19, 2003, the New York Times quoted American government sources as estimating the “foreign fighters phenomenon” to number between 1,000 and 3,000 individuals. A more reasonable approximation currently being floated by U.S. and British intelligence analysts puts the overall force at between 300 and 500 “foreign volunteers”, most of them Islamic militants, and spread in small cells of between five and eight operatives. This fits the modus operandi of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Artic...sue25Debat.html
*******************************************************************

You assert that "Dissent (disagreeing) with the government is the highest form of patriotism and therefore it follows that its converse would be the antithesis of patriotism or "it's lowest form"? If this is correct, then it logically follows that anything the government does, by definition, you oppose? Therefore, when the government decides it will pull our troops from Iraq, your dissent will be needed as it will be the "highest form of patriotism".

If the military vote was 67% for Bush, I seriously doubt the vote was for "lower taxs, against abortion, and against Gay marriage. When you are in the military you know you enlisted to fight wars. If you are voting for the guy that put us at war, then it stands to reason that you are in favor of that war.

If there should ever come a day, when say....Bush declares himself the dictator for life of the USA (it could happen, you never know)...or some other nut-case...then I do not want the military to be on his side.

When Alexander Hague was talking to Nixon about his options before resigning he said "Well Mr. President you have the military". If Nixon had chosen that option and the military were all Republicans then I wonder if he could have pulled that off? It is just plain idiotic to me to set a course that leads to the military of this country being in favor of one Party due to the opposition Party's outright belittlement of those soldiers that believe in the mission they are performing.

Father, son plan for special day together in Iraq
Submitted by: II Marine Expeditionary Force (FWD)
Story Identification #: 200561741916
Story by Staff Sgt. Ronna M. Weyland

CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq (June 17, 2005) -- This Father’s Day will be spent in a foreign country, but the day will still be celebrated together for one Powder Springs, Ga., family.

“I have a couple of cigars that were a gift to me that we are going to smoke on Father’s Day or the first chance we get,” said Larry Murray, civilian contractor, G-6, II Marine Expeditionary Force (FWD).

Murray, who arrived in Iraq June 1, was fortunate enough to be stationed on the same base as his son, Private Nicholas R. Murray, 20, assault amphibious vehicle crewman, 2nd Platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 2nd Marine Division.

Nicholas said he knew his father might be coming to Iraq before he deployed himself in March.

“There was talk about it, but nothing was for certain,” said Nicholas. “I was pretty excited when I found out I would have my father out here at the same time. That doesn’t happen for too many people.”

Larry said it was a unique opportunity to be able to come to Iraq; one he couldn’t pass up. He had learned about a job available working for DataPath in satellite communications supporting II MEF (FWD).

“I got a leave of absence from work and my guard unit, to take this opportunity,” he said.

Larry said he is no stranger to deployments and was deployed in support of Operation Bright Star during the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001. He is a reservist with 283rd Combat Communication Squadron, Georgia Air National Guard at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, in Marietta, Ga.

He said despite being in the National Guard, he hasn’t had the opportunity to deploy in support of Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.

“It gives me a chance to feel like I have done something for the cause,” he said about working in Iraq.

Despite Nicholas’ high operational tempo requiring him to go outside the wire often, both father and son hope to be able to spend some time playing cards and just hanging out getting to know each other on a different level.

“It is a good chance for us to bond and get to know each other, not to sound to cliché,” said Nicholas about spending time with his father. “I got to take him out on a ride in one of the tracks too and that was fun.”

Both agree they believe in what they are doing in Iraq.

“I didn’t know exactly what to expect when I first got here since it was my first deployment,” said Nicholas. “I think we are doing a lot of good out here. I am lucky to be working with a good group of guys who know what they are doing and learning from some who have been here before.”

Nicholas said he has also learned to appreciate things a lot more and not to take life for granted. His father agreed.

“I think learning to appreciate life is a lesson people don’t usually learn until later in life,” Larry said. “In a way it is a gift for these young people to learn this early on in life.”

Back home in Powder Springs, Deborah Murray is proud of both her husband and son.

“I am so proud of both of them. The feeling is too big for words,” she wrote in an e-mail. “When I found out about Larry going over there I was happy. I am glad they are together and that Nick has someone to look after him. I am greatly comforted by that. Most people don't understand, they say it's terrible that both my husband and son are over there, and I tell them, no, that's right where Larry needs to be right now.”

Deborah had her own message to pass to her husband, “Happy Father’s Day Larry...you are truly the best dad and as far as I'm concerned, no one else even comes close. I love you and am very proud of both of you.”

Geez Louise, now ABC News ain't good enough? 'Tis certainly not part of the GOP propaganda machine, methinks definitely not part of PAO for the Corps, eh? What sources are you inclined to accept?

Let's find some military personnel that are not part of your propaganda story and see what they have to say too okay? Is that acceptable? You know, marketplace of ideas...otherwise known as a significant portion of the concept of "democracy".

The Boston Globe is at it again. This piece describes a mother's fear and discouragement of her son joining the military.

I don't want to be here. Duty is why I am here. I know that is a foreign concept to some people. You support your nation. Especially in times like these.

I really miss my family. But they understand why I am here. Have you ever had to explain to a five year old boy that you are going away and may never come back? Have you had to put it in words that he would understand? Take out WMDs, Take out global politics. It boils down to this:

“Daddy has to go to a place called Iraq. It is very far away. There are bad people there. Daddy is going to kill them, and they are trying to kill me. Daddy is one of the good guys, and the good guys fight the bad guys. Sometimes the good guys win, and sometimes the good guys get killed. But daddy doesn't want the bad guys to come here and hurt you and mommy and Adelle. I love you too much to let that happen. Even if it means that I may die.”

So discourage your son. Tell him there are other ways to "serve." Tell him to carry a sign, protest, do whatever he wants, but stay at home and be safe. Be a sheep, because other men will take it upon themselves to be sheepdogs and protect you from the wolves.

Feel free to question their methods and motives. Feel free to burn the flag they wear on their uniforms. Feel free to do what you want to do with your life, because they have bled, they have sacrificed; they have given more to you than you will ever give to them.

Just don't ever look them in the eye and call them brother.

Don't ever consider that you are a peer of these men and women. Because they know what sacrifice means. They know what freedom is, and what it costs. They know what it feels like to be scared to their very souls and continue to fight.

I would like to talk to her son. I would not glorify or even try to otherwise recruit him. I would simply tell him that in a couple of years, he will have the option to join. He will be able to make that decision of his own free will, which, in and of itself is a freedom that was guaranteed by the blood of so many others like me. He will not be pressed into service; he will not be forced to serve. He is able to make the choice, like so many others, to do what he wants to do. To do what he thinks is right.

If able to serve, do so. If not, support those who do. Protesting doesn’t support the nation any more than not voting supports a candidate. Simply, I don’t like what you are doing so I am going to protest it to show that I don’t support what you are doing. Because I live in a free country, where I can say/do what I want, I will protest, which shows my support for my rights, and in turn, the country. If you represent my county, and I don’t support you, I still support you by protesting you, because my protesting shows how much freedom I have.

I’m sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I can’t make it make sense no matter how many times I write it.


There’s a rant in here somewhere. I’ll make it very brief, as I have a meeting to get to.

Stay at home and protest all you want. Don’t support me, or my government. I would be here regardless of who was in office, if not here, then elsewhere doing the same thing. Be safe, be happy, live your life. But don’t ever think that I will consider you equal, because without me, you wouldn’t be able to do any of it.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Chuck
http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/

I am not referring to those on this board. I am referring to the majority of your fellow citiczens, 60% of whom oppose the war. Your posts almost all come from the same source, and contain no factual information, except for unconfirmed anecdotes, and the repeating of lies and delusions long ago exposed. I doubt that Congressman Freedom Fries is wondering if he was lied to and decieved from his extensive time spent on al-jazeera or the dailyKOS. When you are not pasting the work of US military public relations department, you are either ridiculing those who disagree with you, or changing the subject. These are the tactics of someone who has embraced a position the overwhelimg evidence does not support.


Need more sources....
http://www.davidcorn.com/


The detroit free press...
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/eco...7e_20050617.htm


From Blomberg...
U.S. Lawmakers Unveil Bill to Force Troop Withdrawals From Iraq
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news

The Wall street Journal
Republican Strains Emerge Over Iraq
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB....html?mod=blogs

Friday, June 17, 2005
Balls instead of Bombs

Some of the soldiers in our unit get together with some of the local villagers for a weekly game of soccer. Soccer in this part of the world (they call it football) is like football in the U.S. They are very passionate about the sport, begin playing at a young age, and follow their favorite teams. Personally, running up and down a field chasing after a ball in 100+ degree weather looks a little like "work" to me so I haven't actually played yet. Not to mention the Iraqis are really good at this sport so we usually take a schlacking (They even loaned us some guys in order to even the odds). However, I did take some photos at the last game in order to show you some more good stories you won't see on the evening news.

They even beat us playing bare-footed. Since most of these guys grew up without any shoes they can tolerate just about anything. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see one of them walk over a bed of hot coals.



http://www.uppermansblog.blogspot.com/

Nice try. It tugs at the heartstrings, but it does not address why we send such dedicated folks off to fight a nation that posed no threat to us. Sorry, but if the writer was not in Iraq, we would still be able to do what we want, since they are not protecting you and I from anything. They are fighting the wars of clueless old men, as it has always been. They are fighting for the few, the powerful, the wealthy.

Encourage your children not serve these liars? Hell yes.

Ah...yes of course, but you do understand don't you rd: "Dissent is the HIGHEST form of Patriotism!" Therefore, I am dissenting against your "majority" who have no real idea of what they want to do about Iraq, but they know they want to do something! That's fine. There's a foreign policy section to discuss it. This is the active duty military section...and there is no more appropriate place to discuss the "NEWS FROM THE SOLDIERS". ANECDOTAL PROOF....AHH YES...AND YOUR SOURCES ABOUT HOW THE SOLDIERS FEEL ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR ARE??? Nothing more, nothing less, than what THEY, as INDIVIDUALS (that would be anecdotal in case you don't make the connection) SAY about the war, and about their military service. If you want to discuss policy, that's fine, but there is a section for that. If you want to insert that topic here, that's fine too, but some posters do not feel that this is the section to have THAT discussion...however, I"m sure other's will agree with you, and will respond. When others do NOT respond, assume FIRST that it's because that is not how they, as individuals, view this subsection of the forum....not because they could not have the discussion with you if they chose to have it.

That is of course your opinion. You are entitled to it. The complaint was that all of these stories about our service men and women were coming from PR sites, and so I decided to find some other sources....there is a comments section there if you would like to register your opinion about his service if you want, but I am trying to give soldiers a SAY, on the "U.S. MILITARY ISSUES" forum, not the foreign policy section. However, I'm quite certain that if this had lambasted the Bush administration and the war, you would have profered no complaint. I'm sorry that I will not oblige YOUR desire to read only those opinons that reinforce your pre-conceived notions.

I will encourage my son to serve his country...one in the military, because that's what he wants to do, and the other in the Peace Corp...because that's the way HE wants to serve his country. In any event, I have always encouraged my kids to serve their country in any way they feel suits their personalities. I discourage them from thinking only of themselves. It is to me, the American way; and so is your way....but your way is no better, no different, no more morally superior, than mine of this soldier, who sacrificed himself so you can parade around with your protest signs...hey...that's America. You wouldn't want to change that would you?

You turn it as if this anonymous poster by the handle of Picadilly Duck has any authority. But if you want a public statement of the Duck's ratings on the sources you list above, to catch up on all that I failed to comment, I'll be happy to oblige.

Duck Rating from 0 to 3, where 0 is small/local/low/inexistant

Al Jazeera:
factual scope: 3
factual accuracy: 2
analysis scope: 1
analysis bias: 2
opinion bias: 2
deliberate bias: 2
ingenous bias: 0

DailyKos:
factual scope: 3
factual accuracy: 2
analysis scope: 2
analysis bias: 1
opinion bias: 1
deliberate bias: 2
ingenous bias: 1

Dahr Jamail:
factual scope: 0
factual accuracy: 3
analysis scope: 1
analysis bias: 1
opinion bias: 1
deliberate bias: 0
ingenous bias: 2

Counterpunch:
factual scope: 2
factual accuracy: 1
analysis scope: 1
analysis bias: 2
opinion bias: 2
deliberate bias: 2
ingenous bias: 2

Summary
-----------
Counterpunch: highly and frequently propagandist, frequently inaccurate, poor analysis, high bias
Al Jazeera: moderately but frequently propagandist, occasionally inaccurate, limited analysis scope, medium bias
Dahr Jamail: moderately but rarely propagandist, limited factual scope, rarely inaccurate, fair analysis scope, light bias
DailyKos: lightly but frequently propagandist, rarely inaccurate, large analysis scope, light analysis bias

I never quote Counterpunch or Al Jazeera for analysis or opinion, although it might happen that I reference a third source's article published on either site.
I may eventually quote Al Jazeera for the report of some facts,
I may quote Dahr Jamail for testimony, eventually for some limited analysis or opinion with a limited scope.
I may quote DailyKos for an editor's analysis or opinion.

So now you have it, I consider:
- Counterpunch and Al Jazeera mostly as propaganda.
- Dahr Jamail as ingenously biased
- DailyKos as slightly biased.


No, you don't get it. Just don't sell propaganda as some kind of testimony.
As for criticizing my own opinions, I post them hear for precisely that purpose.

Hey Duck, where did the stats come from? That would really come in handy when evaluating sites.

Oh, and yes, I have to add that Picadilly is good about sourcing....others are not so good. But, still, what Marine is posting is very typical of the stories I hear and read concerning the soldiers, so I can't say that it's "propaganda". All I can say, is the opinions of our soldiers DO MATTER, no matter what! Whether they agree with us or not. In fact, it would be really something if we, in our haste, started an anti-war movement totally unsupported by any of the men and women serving. Then I would say we were serving "ourselves" and not our soldiers at all. Hey...it's a strong possibility!

Heart, there has been litterally thousands of essays which have been written about this Thomas Paine quote.

It is "dissent" as the expression of disagreement and the engagement in a political confrontation as commitment to that disagreement, opposed to disagreeing but going in hiding, escaping precisely that confrontation.

Laid them on the spot as those factors that I use to appreciate the credit I give to sources.
Eventually, you should be able to find something similar in some journalism and intelligence chapter.

It wasn't the quote I had a problem with....it's the accusation that failure to "dissent", does not equal lack of patriotism. This is what you implied, whether you meant to or not, when you offered this comment in your ire:

"If "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism", it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out it's lowest form."

Clearly, you were not thinking when you wrote that, for it does imply that the converse of dissent is "lowest form of patriotism" and if that's not what you meant to say, then I just chalk it up to anger. I realize that dissent is difficult, but I also realize that dissent from "prevailing opinion" is also difficult.

Yes, I guess military enlistees would be in favor of any war they were involved in...Well, maybe not necessarily be in favor of a war, but unquestioning about their duty to serve. Okay, that makes sense.
When Hague told Nixon "you have the military" what exactly do you think Nixon would have/ could have done with our military to improve his situation?

Their opinion matters as the opinion of citizens, certainly not soldiers.
It is the military at the service of the people, not the other way around.

It is actually to prevent war that democratic societies establish military institutions.

Only non-democratic nations establish and feed their military institutions as some routine instruments of foreign policy, threatening the use of force to gain whatever advantage diplomacy fails to achieve.

I really do wish there was some "agreed upon" method of evaluating sources, but alas there isn't. The scope of opinions and interpretation of facts is a tough business, and bias is certainly inherent in every human evalution. Unless you are running something like open source software standards, or the wikipedia, it's difficult to get a large enough sample of truly informed people to correct or modify any piece of writing.

I still value the MSM because a failure on their part to present factual information can lead to serious concequences in the financial and reputational departments. They hire fact checkers at least. Everything else is just someone's (sometimes informed) opinion. All I am saying about that, is that we should not give weight to opinions disproportionately just because we agree with it...and failing that...expect to have those who disagree with the opinion call it such.

The idea of limiting the spectrum of opinion coming from the military, from the wives, mothers, sons, daughters ect...either serving or recently served in the arena of war...strikes me as narrow minded. Until and unless, there is some method of assessing the true feelings and thoughts of ALL our military personnel, we have only their stories, which are admittedly anecdotal to go by. Yet, the best journalism is anecdotal or I would not have spent so many years reading first hand tourist accounts, historical letters, or Studs Terkel writing. Reading enough of it, from a variety of sources, establishes a mid-way point where one can arrive at an approximate truth, and this may not be easily achieved if you are only reading one particular paper, even with fact checkers. The important point is to read a wide variety...otherwise you do not do the subject justice.

God only knows what he could have, or would have, done had he listened to Hague. I don't know what Hague had in mind, but if you think about military coup's around the world there is nothing to say that Nixon couldn't have stayed in office with a strong military presence. All I know is that the comment was quite chilling to me when I first heard it. Democracy is difficult to keep. That's what I presume most of us are trying to ensure....I just do not want there to come a time when "if it's not my way, then it's not democracy". There are authoritarian Leftist dogmas' just as frightful as any that come from the Right.

Heart,
My experiences are quite different form yours concerning why some young people enlist in the military. Though I do not question the fact that when people sign up they know that they may be fighting wars, the young people I know who have enlisted did so because they needed the discipline of the military training and they were seeking educational opportunities. Although they knew they could end up fighting in a war, not ONE person I know chose to enlist because they were enthusiastic about going to war .
Now, young people who are graduates of our elite military schools: West Point, the U.S.Naval Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy, etc are interested in becoming military career professionals and they have made a committment to dedicate their professional lives to the military. This group I assume would have the kind of committment of which you speak-a desire to be involved in our armed forces no matter where that committment might lead-even to the battlefield and the graveyard.
Also, I think it is highly probable that some military personnel vote for the Commander-in Chief even if they would prefer the other candidate. Why? Go along with the crowd mentality, you vote for your "boss" not against him, etc. Quite frankly, the fact that only 67% of the miltary voted for Bush in a time of war surprises me-I would think it would be somewhere in the range of at least 90%.

Thats why our founding fathers wrote a citizens militia into the constitution.

Yes Amy, there are a lot of good reasons to join the military. I joined for all of the reasons you mentioned, and more. I joined because I felt I owed it to the United States...to defend, to honor, to protect. I joined to see more foreign places, to employ my previously acquired skills and see how they matched up against the US military expectations. I joined so that I would have training in warfare tactics and procedures dispensed by the best military in the world. I joined because this nation has saved so many people all over the world from oppression, and even when they did not succeed, they tried as hard as possible. I joined because the Soviets were a threat, they were oppressing people, and I was damn sure going to be the person who stood up, trained and ready, against them if I was called to do so. Wars of liberation were fine by me. If it had to be done, then I was going to do it. I could not go into combat, but I did what I could do best, and fully expected to go to combat if I was called. It was my honor to enlist...to take that oath...and to uphold my end of the bargain as a citizen. It did not matter to me if the war was something I agreed with, or disagreed with, it mattered that it was "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all"...and if this government of ELECTED representatives voted to go to war, and if the commander in chief sent the country to war...it never occured to me that it was only "some" wars, or only if "some" presidents sent me there, it only mattered to me that I went when called.

No, I have no complaint with people who agree with me, this is normal.

I suggested no such thing. Perhaps you are reading words I did not write, but I can never know. I have said that Marine or anyone else can post what they want, and like wise, others can post their POV.

No I would not want to change that, but I sure do believe I can express my opinion that the Military rarely serves the people living in America, but in fact serves those in power whose main interest is increasing that power. As far as serving your country goes, you are free to believe this has some noble purpose, and I am free to believe under the current conditions, it's nonsense.

Okay Heart, this nation needs people like you who have an unquestioning loyalty to all military engagements. But this nation also needs people who will question and examine the reasons we go to war to protect the integrity of our "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all".. I'm not certain, Heart, that those words imply we are to invade other nations to liberate its people. I believe those words mean that all who are citizens of the U.S. are, one nation, under God, a nation that seeks to provide liberty and justice for all its citizens. I do not believe that these words in any way suggest that this nation should expand its liberties to other peoples by way of pre-emptive military invasion.

But Ace, have you forgotten? You have innumerable posts in the 2nd Amendment thread advocating stripping the citizen militia of it's guns.

I don't suppose you have noticed, that all of these people, like the weapons of mass destruction , were not present or operating in Iraq before we invaded. The weapons were never there, so they could never do us any harm, but now terrorists are, and they are doing our troops great harm. We create a breeding ground for terrorists, in the course of fighting a war based on a pack of lies, and you call this a mission worth completing.

Leave Iraq now, it only gets worse.


BTW, you did miss one source of resistance, but the US military did not.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/RegionNF...rticleID=168406

Now terrorists are...yes...true! And if we leave Iraq, they will soon be here and everyplace else Americans travel.

If the justification for WWI was the sinking of Lusitania. There were a variety of reasons, but that was what the slogan that galvanized the nation.

Remember the Maine...I'm sure the Puerto Rican's do, as they have voted in many a referendum that they wish to stay in the United States. However, the Maine was an accident therefore, it didn't turn out that we had good intel there either.

It's pretty well known that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack us, and he waited, but the two years before that he revved up the US military and planned for war, in the absense of any attack. In 1938, Roosevelt was giving speeches that indicated we were going to war. Pearl Harbor was just the slogan, the rallying cry, that galvanized the nation.

In Korea...thank god for US forces, or the South Koreans would have an even bigger gulag. That was purely a war of interests wasn't it? Idealogy yes, but economic interests most definately.

I'm so shocked that you are so terribly concerned about international law, yet you are perfectly willing to break international law when it suits you (as leaving Iraq without an army and functioning government is most definately in violation of international law). International law says we must complete the mission, even if nothing else sways your opinion, that should hold stock with you, since you care about it so deeply.

And how could I miss your one assertion that there are Iraqis fighting too. I have no doubt that is true, particularly the ex Ba'athists who want to go back to running Iraq the same way Saddam did...Ba'athists and their clans on the top of the food chain and death to anyone else. But, the foreign fighters are the bulk of the suicide bombers...the directions and money are coming from Syria where the Ba'athists fled, and the lowly grunt on the street in Iraq is getting paid $200 to shoot an RPG, or to act as a spotter, but the suiciders that are killing so many, they are *mostly* foreign jihadists, and most of the Iraqis are too scared of them to turn them in, but that too is changing.

[quote=heart,Jun 18 2005, 12:59 AM]
Now terrorists are...yes...true! And if we leave Iraq, they will soon be here and everyplace else Americans travel.

So Bush invaded Iraq to draw terrorists there (like flies to honey) so that they can be contained within the borders of Iraq and systematically eliminated by the U.S. military? Okay, so this means that we will be Iraq how long? I mean how long will it take to eliminate all the terrorists that would be a threat to the U.S.? Years, decades, centuries? No attack on the U.S. since 9/11 because they're all fighting or planning on fighting in Iraq? Okay. Did Bush mention any of this in his formal speeches to the American public, the Congress or the UN? Now when he states that invading Iraq is helping the war on terrorism, I'll understand his meaning. No wonder not much emphasis has been placed on homeland security. The war in Iraq IS our homeland security. Geez, how naive could I have been to think that Iraq was about WMD and homeland security was mostly about dozens of ways to better secure our country here in North America. Silly, silly me.

I didn't have any time to post here today.

Today Lance Cpl. Dustin V. Birch of St. Anthony was laid to rest.

He was only in Iraq for 3 months before he was killed.

Heart,

At least you come back for some clarification which I am happy to oblige to.

Even if Tom Paine's quote went unrecognized, and "dissent" appears center to what the quote means, by asking to figure out "the lowest form" refers to Patriotism, which came to my mind because I remembered this other thread still alive and kicking titled "PATRIOTISM means different things to different people."

All things being equal in respect to the different meanings of "patriotism", the paraphrase refered as "the lowest form of patriotism" takes on the various meanings of "low":

About the adjective "low", the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2000) says:

(http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/L0265500.html)


low:

ADJECTIVE

1a. Having little relative height; not high or tall.
1b. Rising only slightly above surrounding surfaces.
1c. Situated or placed below normal height: a low lighting fixture.
1d. Situated below the surrounding surfaces: water standing in low spots.
1e. Dead and buried.
1f. Cut to show the wearer's neck and chest; décolleté: a low neckline.

2. Near or at the horizon: The sun is low in the sky.

3. Close or closer to a reference point: was low in the offensive zone, near the goal.

4. Linguistics Produced with part or all of the tongue depressed, as a, pronounced (ä), in father. Used of vowels.

5. Of less than usual or average depth; shallow: The river is low.

6. Humble in status or character; lowly: of low birth.

7. Biology Of relatively simple structure in the scale of living organisms.

8. Unrefined; coarse: low humor.

9. Violating standards of morality or decency; base: a low stunt to pull. See synonyms at mean2.

10a. Lacking strength or vigor; weak.
10b. Lacking liveliness or good spirits; discouraged or dejected.

11a. Below average in degree, intensity, or amount: a low temperature.
11b. Below an average or a standard: low wages; a low level of communication.
11c. Ranked near the beginning of an ascending series or scale: a low number; a low grade of oil.
11d. Relating to or being latitudes nearest to the equator.
11e. Relatively small. Used of a cost, price, or other value: a low fee; a low income.

12. Having a pitch corresponding to a relatively small number of sound-wave cycles per second.

13. Not loud; soft: a low murmur.

14. Being near total depletion: My savings account is low.

15. Not adequately provided or equipped; short: low on supplies.

16. Depreciatory; disparaging: a low opinion of him.

17. Brought down or reduced in health or wealth: in a low state.

18. Of, relating to, or being the gear configuration or setting, as in an automotive transmission, that produces the least vehicular speed with respect to engine speed.


The literl interpretation of the "lowest form of Patriotism" implies a variable factor which itself determines the different forms patriotism can take.

Going back to how I defined "dissent", the expression of disagreement and the engagement in a political confrontation as commitment to that disagreement,,
those notions involved which may be subject to some variation qualifiable as high or low include:

- expression: a high/low qualification suggests how loud or how well/efficient/stylish such expression is formulated.

- disagreement: a high/low qualification suggests how big or small is a disagreement between two distinct opinions.

- engagement: a high/low qualification suggests the level of personal involvement, i.e. in terms of priority, relative to the dimension of the confrontation, generally described by the evaluation of all forces, agreeing and disagreeing, already engaged in the confrontation.

- commitment: a high/low qualification suggests here the level of determination to address the issue, relative to third partys' expectations

The possible combinations of these factors, which respective importance is more or less globally significant, and more or less significant relative to each other factor, represent the frameworks, in which may be distinguished behaviors in respect of the different forms of patriotism one may understand and adopt, and relative to various degrees of "dissent".

Those behaviors I had in mind when suggesting to "figure out the lowest forms of patriotism" were:

- mute obedience in spite of disagreeing,

- assertion of agreement to the prevailing opinion, either because one lacks an opinion, or by plain opportunist strategy.

Very detailed explaination of the statement, however...I have a low BS threshhold so I'll pass.

Just for the sake of precision, it's Alexander Haig. I mix up names also pretty often.

Haig was definitely a war hawk. (btw, is he still alive ?)

I've often heard the quote, but until now never looked up the reference.
Where was that quote first published ?

An opinion, and then pick, pick, pick.


Or would they move on (or is it back?) to Afghanistan, the easiest place to pick off American soldiers after Iraq? Certainly you wouldn't think that Iran and the other countries aiding those fighting our troops in Iraq would stop them from moving on to the next combat zone? Big if here: IF Iraq can stabilize itself as part of a timetable (as called for in House and Senate bills under debate now), I believe the terrorists will simply shift bases if they can no longer use Iraq to target us. If they can destabilze Iraq, then they have a new prewar Afghanistan thanks to our own doing.

BTW - big music festival here locally. Going on two years now and I still haven't met someone personally that has been in Iraq and wants to go back, unless their buddies are still there. With that exception, 100% have been perfectly happy to come home and get out, doing whatever it takes in their RR/IRR time to avoid going back.


I think you're correct, but confusing. The final 'cause' of American entry into the war was the Zimmerman Telegram on top of unrestricted submarine warfare (in response to the British blockade of Germany). This telegram was intercepted (in violation of international law) aand decoded by the British and then held for over a year until it would have the most devastating impact upon the American people. Sure, "Remember the Lusitania" was used quite effectively on posters, but there were other slogans used. I'd argue that the Lusitania (in 1917) was used just as 9/11 was used to push Americans towards war with Iraq, only the Lustania really did have something to do with the war, it was one small step towards war, but I think 'justification' is misused in your post.


Only because there is a large minority of the population that want either independance, or to become the 51st state. I'm to tired to get into the role of the press and industrial forces to push us to war, the Maine was a convenience, a 'lucky break' that allowed us to be pushed into a imperialistic war that the American people wanted. One that would free an oppressed people that had been fighting for their independance, and asked for our help. Sure there were some among the Kurds that wanted our help, but we sure pushed a lot of dissidents away after Daddy Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, and then watched as they were slaughtered. This quagmire could have been done years ago with American assistance, rather than an illegal American occupation.


He knew war was imminent. He made secret (and illegal) plans with Churchill before Pearl Harbor to get ready for it, and then didn't inform many of his advisors what he had done. It could be argued that we helped bring on the war through the embargo of raw materials to Japan, but we cannot neglect the militarism within Japan that saw us as a threat to their desire for empire. Their top strategists did not feel they could win a war with us, but that we could be humbled and that they could then be forced to bargain with them, as the Russians had 40 years before. The resolution of that war left a strong feeling of resentment towards us as well (see my above nitpick for relevance to today.) I guess I would need to see what you are refering to with regards to 1938. FDR was a hawk in a party of doves, and he knew it. His party and the American people didn't want war. Google Ludlow Amendment and Nye Committee to see what Americans thought about war. The Panay Incident could well have given us reason to go to war with Japan (as had the Maine), but Americans wanted to know why our ships were in a war zone rather than how we were going to exact revenge for American blood.


I don't see what economic interest we had in saving South Korea at all.

Isn't it just plainly convenient to be concerned about the lesser violation of our collection ?

The world saw the establishment of most nations and states around today before a few thousand colonials, who found in Locke's "natural rights and natural law" a rhethoric to contest the established constitutional law, decided to rebel against the governing constituency, the British Empire, the freest society the world ever saw at that time.
...

Isn't it so convenient that most combattants in iraq are not iraqis ? It keeps US troops from killing iraqis, then iraqis don't have any reason to become angry against the US, right ?

No fireworks here! Methinks this NPR program, "Analysis: How soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are dealing with recovery" broadcast December 20, 2004 on TALK OF THE NATION covers a lotta ground. Starts with the story of a young Marine Lance Corporal, then goes on to discuss the medical care system of the military and VA, both positive and negative. I'd hope folks'll find it interesting, eh?

My two cents. We should withdraw from Iraq. We should never have gone in there in the first place. We should cut the gravy train for Halliburton, Bechtel, and all foreign contractors. Give the rebuilding jobs to the Iraqis, and pay them.

This is their country not ours. We were lied to as to the reason to invade another country. We did so, Saddam is gone from power. Give him to the Iraqis. We should have a timetable for withdrawl for ALL to see, including the terrorists, and Iraqi insurgency. If they want to "wait us out", fine. By that time those Iraqis with paying jobs in the military, and industry will have a stake in maintaining the status quo.

Our guys have done enough for Iraq. Bring em' home to their families and a reasonable life. Honor their service and take care of their injuries. We owe them that.

Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld for high crimes. Throw them out of office.

I suppose about 30,000 Iranian gas victims and a few Kurdish villages might dispute that statement. You would get an argument from about double that number but they are dead (from the WMD that were never there).

As far as economic interests, about the same as Kosovo. Humanatarian issues sometimes trump the buck.

U.S. Marine Corps
Cpl. Joel R. Dominguez

Yuma, Arizona Native Receives Purple Heart

By U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Enrique S. Diaz
compiled by Cpl. Joel A. Chaverri
CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq — The Purple Heart is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious metals to be earned while serving in the U.S. military.
The honor of receiving this award was granted Dec. 1 to Yuma, Ariz., native Cpl. Joel R. Dominguez, radio operator, Detachment A, Marine Wing Communication Squadron 48, Marine Aircraft Control Group 38, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, for an injury received during a rocket attack on his compound.

Standing duty near the flight line the night of Sept. 23, Dominguez's compound suddenly began receiving indirect fire.

The first barrage was over within a few minutes and each section started to take accountability, said the 24-year-old.

Being in charge of one of the sections, Dominguez made his way to the guard shack to make sure everyone was all right.

Almost immediately after stepping away from the guard shack, a second barrage began raining in, closer with every explosion, said Dominguez.

"It was just a blur. Time stopped for a couple minutes," U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Dominguez recounted. "The way (the rockets) were coming in; the next one was guaranteed to hit where I was running."

With time against him, Dominguez tried to run for cover, but not before a rocket landed about 30 feet away; close enough to kill.

"I was pretty much sure that he was already dead," said Sgt. Michael Tsytsurin, a 32-year-old Los Angeles native who was also standing post.

Watching helplessly as the rocket exploded so close to Dominguez, Tsytsuirn described the event as being surreal and like something out of a war movie when "someone is running and then there is this big ball of light."

The concussion from the rocket was intense enough to knock the unsuspecting Dominguez to the ground.


"U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Joel R. Dominguez, radio operator, Detachment A, Marine Wing Communication Squadron 48, Marine Aircraft Control Group 38, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, displays the Purple Heart he received during a ceremony Dec.1 for injuries suffered from a rocket attack. The 24-year-old from Yuma, Ariz., was wounded while standing guard duty, Sep. 23, on Camp Taqaddum when his post began receiving indirect fire. Photo by U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Enrique S. Diaz

"It was just a blur. Time stopped for a couple minutes," Dominguez recounted. "The way (the rockets) were coming in; the next one was guaranteed to hit where I was running."

Fortunately, the "next one" never came, and Dominguez quickly recovered from the blast and ran back to his barracks. Unsure of what just happened, he had his Marines check him over.

"I felt a slight sting in my arm," Dominguez said. "With all the adrenaline, I couldn't tell if I was hit."

A shard from the rocket had pierced deep into his left triceps, but luckily, he would be okay.

Dominguez showed no emotion as he received the Purple Heart from his squadron commander (forward), Maj. Roswell V. Dixon. He simply expressed how he didn't feel the award was deserved.

The Marines on the daily convoys and on the front lines are the ones who truly deserve to be recognized, he said.

"It is gratifying to give the Purple Heart to a Marine that is standing in front of me," noted Dixon, "not his next of kin.

Amy,

I am not saying that I have unquestioning loyalty...I am saying that, at the time, when I was in the military, I simply wanted to serve the United States. I trusted democracy to work out the details of wars, elections and such.

I consider your right to engage in that public debate about the war as the reason I was prepared to fight for this country; likewise, I consider my right to be in favor of this war, the reason I was prepared to fight for this country. One side should not be labeled as 'warmongers', "republicans, or "black sheep" although that' last one is kinda cute.