#2
Speaking of 'ole JOHN E., DRUDGEREPORT > MCCLATCHY > seems Edwards' name as love child's Big Daddy is allegedly NOT described/indic on the baby's Birth Certificate???
#2
Obama needs to do like George W. Bush - pick someone your worst enemies hate even more than you. Kind of a 'life insurance' policy. Not sure Ms. Clinton fits.
Posted by: Menhaden S ||
07/31/2008 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No mention of needing to use silver to eat with at all times while Hillary is VP so that you can notice when certain dishes turn it black....
#4
No to Clinton. Clintons come in twos, and three's a crowd. Although I'd pay good money to see someone tie Obama to Bill and throw them over a clothesline.
Posted by: Bin thinking again ||
07/31/2008 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
This is posted in response to a recent post by GolfBravoUSMC. Thank you, GB, for bringing this moron to light once again. Yes, it's dated, but still to the point and deserves a revisit. I'm filing this under SAST, WOT, as he indirectly supports our enemies. Continued on Page 49
The last few months have been a heady time in Colombia. In February an estimated 10 million citizens demonstrated against the guerrilla organizations, principally the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) and Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN).
In March, three of the FARC's seven directors, died - after two were murdered, the group's founder had a fatal heart attack. Shortly after, two senior FARC comandantes voluntarily surrendered. In recent years, FARC's ranks have plummeted from more than 25,000 to fewer than 8,000.
Then on July 2, the Colombian military rescued 15 high-profile hostages in a daring helicopter mission. Seven specially trained, unarmed troops, impersonating guerrillas and foreign mediators, outwitted 60 FARC guards without a shot fired.
Continued on Page 49
The e-mail came when I was in Mexico, at a fitness resort that -- in pursuit of wellness -- confines BlackBerry use to guests' rooms. "Need to chat briefly with you regarding John Edwards and the effects of this scandal on his future political career." It was from a reporter I know at People. I had no idea what he was talking about. . . .
It would be 24 hours later that I fully re-introduced media toxins into my body. Ingesting the National Enquirer account of Edwards' purported Beverly Hills Hotel visit to the purported mother of his purported love child turned out to be as shocking to my system as the I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! Light that I unthinkingly shmeared on the ranch bread, won at bingo, that I'd brought home with me.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike ||
07/31/2008 14:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I believe that "hope is not a method."
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
07/31/2008 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Does believing in "Hope" mean you're really a dope?
#2
I think in the long run this trip to ME and Euro zone will 1) be forgotten by the time of convention, and 2) will become an albatross around his scrawny Yerkel neck. McCain needs to keep pounding him on not endorsing the surge and his negativity regarding the political process. As to Lieberman, he is already on McCain's campaign committee. I'd be more convinced if Obama picked Cheney as his next VP.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/31/2008 8:15 Comments ||
Top||
July 31, 2008: In Iraq and Afghanistan, infantry tactics have changed considerably over the last few years. This is largely gone unnoticed back home, unless you happen to know an old soldier or marine that remembers the old style of shooting. Put simply, the emphasis is on a lot fewer bullets fired, and much more accurate shooting. Elite forces, like the Special Forces and SEALs, have always operated this way. But that's because they had the skill, and opportunity to train frequently, to make it work. But the army and marines have found that their troops can fight the same way with the help of some new weapons, equipment and tactics. Plus lots of combat experience and specialized training. This includes the use of new shooting simulators, which allows troops to fire a lot of virtual bullets, in a realistic setting, without all the hassle and expense of going to a firing range.
One thing that helped, and that was developing for two decades, was the greater used of snipers. Currently, about ten percent of American infantry are trained and equipped as snipers. Commanders have found that filling the battlefield with two man (spotter and shooter) sniper teams not only provides more intelligence, but also lots of precision firepower. Snipers are better at finding the enemy, and killing them with a minimum of noise and fuss. But new rifle sights (both day and night types), have made all infantry capable of accurate, single shot, fire. With the emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down, and the tendency of the enemy to use civilians as human shields, lots of snipers, or infantrymen who can take an accurate shot at typical battle ranges (under 100 meters), are the best way to win without killing a lot of civilians.
New sniper equipment has made a big difference. The U.S. Army has been issuing the new M110 SASS (Semi-Automatic Sniper System) to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This weapon is not a big technological breakthrough. It is based on the older AR-10 rifle. The U.S. Navy has been buying a similar weapon, the SR25. This is also known as the Mk11 Sniper Rifle System (SRS). These new semi-automatic sniper rifles are 7.62mm weapons based on the designs of M-16 creator, retired USAF Colonel Gene Stoner. The basis for the M-16 was the AR-15, and a 7.62mm version of that weapon was called the AR-10. About half the parts in the SR25 are interchangeable with those in the M-16.
Continued on Page 49
#1
It's also easier to spot the enemy. He's usually the guy firing on automatic. The fellows firing one shot at a time are the Americans, and they are usually the last ones standing.
To go along that, and add one more pointless comment from me today, I remember reading two articles quite some time ago, about afghanistan, one (here) where it was mentioned the journalos could make out each side's position in nightime through muzzle flashes, as US forces would fire semi-auto, while taliban would fire full auto; and one (translated in french in a swiss military website) about a SAS team performing a counter-intuitive motorized frontal assault (which succeeded nonetheless without casualties) on a taliban compound, with again the brits taking aimed shots at the droogs, and the arab fighters holding their ak over their head, above the wall, and firing full-auto in the general direction of the attackers (and many doing so while on drugs, too IIRC, hence the droogs bit).
Anyway, the optic revolution must really have changed shooting in anger - hard to see a pic or a vid of an Us soldier without having the flat-top M16 variant mounting one optic or an another; with training updated so the weapon doesn't outperform the shooter, and the Viet Nam style rock & roll will be (is) left in the garbage can of anti-militarist clichés.
#2
And, still in my banter commenting, IIRC, a bit after the dust settled on the initial phase of the OIF, which turned into a pacification phase, there were reprots of Us soldiers acquiring ak as personal armament, mikhail kalashnikov himself made quite a big deal of that; it turned out that was done mostly by non-fighting personal who were at that time armed only with a M9 and were feeling naked in the assault rifle country that iraq was and is... and, IIRC, the trouble with many iraqi ak, chinese or local knock-offs, was that the trend over there was to have the stock removed, in order to use the weapons as a spray & pray type of "big, hip-shooting Smg" (anyone recall reading about the Us/western military instructors having to teach iraqi soldiers how to zero their rifle, back in the very early days of the rebuilding of the iraqi forces? Apparently, this was not done in saddam times!), so there was calls made by some Us soldiers to have relatives back in the USA send them suitable stocks to use the rifle as a rifle.
I think the key is load bearing. They're already loaded up the way it is. The kids are getting real good, focused on the value not just of hitting, but getting head shots. So, do you want to carry more of the 5.56 or less of the 7.62. Ask the troops on the ground who have to hump the stuff. I know many want something that will penetrate walls, but that's M2 country, not the individual weapon.
#6
Proc, I humped an M16/M203 and an M-14 (humped a radio too at times). I know the weight difference. Just wondering if the troops would value more ammo or more one-shot stops.
I guess its really depends on the mission and support. All the one-shot stops in the world can't help you if you're way out in the boonies in a multi-day patrol/LP-OP and run out of your highly effective ammo; likewise all the ammo in the world doesn't help if you can't penetrate the cover or stop the hopped up enemy with your too small ammo.
I wonder if the "compromise" caliber rounds and some sort of electronic+caseless would be a better solution.
#7
I wonder if the "compromise" caliber rounds and some sort of electronic+caseless would be a better solution.
I wonder if it could have been researched, developed and distributed to all infantrymen for less than was wasted on the Crusader. Or the Commanche. Or the DDG-1000 Or...
Although most ulema condemn suicide bombings, a few offer bizarre justifications for it. A few days back a so-called religious scholar was heard saying on TV that during the '65 war, Ayub Khan had ordered his soldiers to lay in front of 500 Indian tanks advancing on Lahore with anti-tank mines tied to their chests as there was no other way of stopping them.
About three days ago, yet another religious scholar said on TV that the Pakistan army soldiers laid in front of 600 Indian tanks in Chowinda sector with mines on their chest and embraced shahadat. These gentlemen who did not have the foggiest idea of a tank battle and didn't know as to where the Indian tanks were -- Lahore or Chowinda -- were narrating such concocted stories simply to justify suicide bombings in Islam.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. No soldier was ever ordered by anyone to lay in front of a tank with a mine tied to his body. In fact, in any army of the world no one can order a soldier to die. Tank is a goliath but has its limitations too. It is almost blind when buttoned up (hatch of its cupola closed). Only the driver and the commander can see through narrow slits and that too straight in whatever direction the tank is heading.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
07/31/2008 14:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There are stories in Pakistan of their guns firing five miles beyond their normal ranges due to the blessing of Allah. That the Indians saw a third line of defenders, dressed in green, who were really angels. Of the bombs from Indian bombers being caught by a huge green sheet, created by Allah, that draped Lahore.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/31/2008 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
It's probably unusual to link to a report by the RAND Corporation and an op-ed on Foxnews.com in the same blog, but since both address the same subject -- tackling al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region -- here goes.
Its analysis of 648 groups that existed between 1968 and 2006 concludes that "military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory." Calling for a rethink of U.S. strategy, it argues that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qaeda."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/31/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
The problem is that none of the other terror outfits declared war on America, carried out significant terror campaigns and finally attacked on American soil killing close to 3,000 civilians (I consider the blind sheikh, Hezbollah and Paleos the same ilk as AQ). Read Andy McCarthy as to why policing and G2 just doesn't cut it. Plus that is the Kerry / Obama / Democrat approach. Do we really believe you defeat AQ that way? And Rand is even suggesting that since 48% of terror groups get incorporated into coalition governments (i.e. Northern Ireland?) then what do we do if we tell AQ to lay down their arms and agenda and join the Pakistani or Afghanistani or Saudi Arabian governments? Would we want an AQ as part of the Iranian government? I don't think so. I think the study is well done quantitatively but its recommendations do not fit defeating AQ.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/31/2008 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase war on terrorism
Ah, here it is. They started with the answer, and worked backwards from there.
#3
What this thinking also misses is that we are not only fighting al Qaeda in North/South Fubar but the Taliban, effectively a proxy militia of the ISI. There is no need to invite the Taliban into the government of Pakistan, they are the government of Pakistan.
Our problem is that we are at war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Iran and for a variety of reasons refuse to admit the fact. RAND should know better.
#4
Interesting talking points, but where is it that RAND can show success with their recommended methods? Seems to me that most every trick in the book has been tried by someone, somewhere, at sometime. It's easy to claim failure of OPS(Other People's Solutions). It tain't so easy to maintain one's own "solution" against knowledgeable skeptics. I didn't see the whole report, but what I saw looked like a bag'o'buzz. More work on this report is needed to make it useful. If I'm wrong, please help me understand. We all could use a few good solutions in this area, whether they be marines, better equiped village cops, vaccine clinics, or economic aids. Anything that works short of total genocide.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/31/2008 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If you make them part of the coalition than truly the terrorists have won and their tactics have been proven effective. This would be the absolutely last ditch, we're gonna lose otherwise, tactic if you ask me.
If we call off the War on Terror and return to police type action we are telling the terrorists of the world that there is a line. On one side you can kill as long as you don't kill too many, the other side says kill so many and we'll kick your arse for awhile. This sents the groundwork for perpetual low-level terrorism.
However if we change tactics and go from overt War on Terror (which fatigues Western consciousness) and go to a special forces, special ops, and mercenary level to press the fight on until victory we might be able to continue while allowing our military and war weary citizenry to rest and recoup. This strategy says that terrorism will be dealt with, we're done with this killing civilians nonsense.
I think course three is the best. To continue with our current strategy of removing governments that sponsor we are going to seriously wear down our troops through constant deployments.
#8
John's plan is the cleanest, most efficient, fewest casualties on all sides and cheapest but not PC.
Comments that I had on the DoDBuzz on the RAND report follows:
RAND has missed the point in that that lawfare only works in a society that believes in the rule of law. Since there are many in the world that do not follow that premise, lawfare did not and will not work. That the police and the courts will take care of it attitude at places like RAND and the halls of government is the primary reason our troops have had to be used to address the problem after the failure of lawfare policys.
The use of modern police techniques by the military does not negate the need for military presence to make it work. Passing some laws and telling the police and courts to take care of it will not address terrorism or radical Islam.
So, while the U.S. Treasury is trying to tighten sanctions on Burma's thug government, the United Nations has been busy funneling millions of dollars to the Burmese regime -- thanks to a classic artificial foreign-exchange rate dodge, which the UN finally acknowledged in public only after weeks of questioning by Inner-City Press (see post below).
Continued on Page 49
#1
Just reading about the UN makes the blood boil. I'm really glad that the US floats a full half of the money for this broken setup. What do we get out of the deal anyway?
#3
...B-B-But, even with all this corruption, SOME money gets through! And surely, that is a noble goal! Dismantling the UN is no solution, pump enough money into it and it will still run!
#2
The fact that the deal died shows you that the emerging market economies have arrived. They don't have to make deals they don't like or that aren't in their interests.
#3
We seem to have more "trade agreements" than we need right now. I've had to watch as these "trade agreements" have sent most of the manufacturing sector from the midwest states to places like mexico and pakistan. Now for the final nail in our coffin, the worldwide trade agreement. I'm sure the fortune 500 dorks love it, they'll send every last goddamned job we have left to bangladesh or vienam. This so-called global economy that was sold to us in the 80's has never brought anything that it promised. I'm sure it has made a few thousand people rich beyond our wildest dreams, but other than that, it sucks.
#4
"Time and again at the Geneva meetings, China and India reiterated how they could not lower their barriers, but insisted we must lower ours."
Yup, pretty much par for the course. For them, negociation means that you come to them, hat in hand, and they graciously deign to speak with you. For generous contributions, you can expect to receive a pittance, as is your due as an outsider.
The real miracle is that this wasn't accepted by the US diplomats - usually they're all over crap like this.
#5
Bigjim gets it, too bad American politicians don't. We have created a situation where we lose everything just so other nations can have something. If grandpa did that to our family, I'd have killed the bastard.
It is a liberal idea, which like all other liberal ideas only advances the advantaged, while speaking for the good of all.
#6
All the third world really has to trade is (a) farm goods (b) labor. If Europe and the USA are gonna block specific farm goods and pay the third world aid instead (to protect our own farmers of course) and the labor can simply move into the first world illegally. What is in it for the various third world nations?
Free trade helps the US citizens because it means we pay the lowest cost for an item. There are times to act of course but we don't really need formal agreements.
#8
Free trade helps the US citizens because it means we get tomatoes hot peppers with salmonella and no traceable point of origin.
You either import their goods with the risk that some will be toxic or else you end up importing their people with the risk some will be toxic. It's easier to to handle the effects of toxic goods, IMHO.
There is a growing confidence among officers, diplomats, and politicians that a constitutional Iraq is going to make it. We don't hear much anymore of trisecting the country, much less pulling all American troops out in defeat.
Critics of the war now argue that a victory in Iraq was not worth the costs, not that victory was always impossible. The worst terrorist leaders, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr, are either dead or in hiding.
The 2007 surge, the Anbar Awakening of tribal sheiks against al-Qaeda, the change to counterinsurgency tactics, the vast increase in the size and competence of the Iraqi Security Forces, the sheer number of enemy jihadists killed between 2003 and 2008, the unexpected political savvy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the magnetic leadership of Gen. David Petraeus have all contributed to a radically improved Iraq.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Only with a generational - all encompassing - population blood transfusion will it ever work. They just do not have the history or backboard to serve against. Once we are gone and they are the lone "democracy" in that world, how long do you think it will last?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/31/2008 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They've jsut had a population blood transfusion. We killed piles of the ones that needed to be expelled fromt he "bloodstream", and that serves as a vacciene.
The error you make is believing that we are goign to be completely gone quickly. Not so, We will likely have 50K toops there for a decade or more. And as their military gets stronger it will be a bulwark for society against the abuses of the Islamists and any would-be dictators.
#3
We still have troops billeted in Germany, Japan and South Korea, Jack. So, too, should we keep American troops in Iraq for several generations. Not to mention that the rest of the region remains at a slow boil, making it likely we'll want to have units readily available for whatever the next step in the War on Terror needs to be.
#6
It would be nice if Iraqi's from around the world (I know we have a ton down here in San Diego) would return to Iraq with their years of living in a peaceful, civilized, democracy. That learning experience has to be valuable to the new Iraqi democracy.
#8
I agree but that role model thing won't last after we've moved on to bases or out of Iraq entirely. Much better to have Uncle Abdul move back into the old neighborhood and bore the folks about how in America we did it this way and it worked pretty well...
#1
"Thirty years ago, Congress cut off aid to Vietnam and Cambodia two years after American troops had been withdrawn and local forces were still desperate to resist. Domestic divisions had overcome all other considerations. We must not repeat the tragedy that followed."
Which is why we need to go all out and push for Iraq veterans and other conservatives for Congress this year. The Battle of Iraq is won militarily on the ground, but can still be lost in Congress.
Posted by: DanNY ||
07/31/2008 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yeah, the fact that Democrats in Congress condemned South Vietnam to torture and murder, JUST so that they could spite Nixon's legacy, is a story that is rarely if ever told. It's certainly not on the radar. Look for Obama to pull the same thing if he gets into office. To hell with the Iraqis, the important thing is to make sure that Bush doesn't have anything positive associated with him WHATSOEVER. There will be NO "well, look at Iraq these days, it's doing great!"
WARNING: If after reading this article your blood pressure stays at greater than 200/120 for four hours, drink plenty of adult beverages and post snarky remarks at Rantburg until it returns to normal.
The United States did not invade Iraq to "stop the violence". That was never the goal. So, it's foolish to say that the surge achieved its objective. It hasn't. Nor has the surge "created the space for a political solution"; another meaningless slogan regurgitated endlessly by the Bush troupe.
The political agenda in Iraq has failed utterly. We know that because the Shiite-led government has asked the US to leave "as soon as possible" and for the Bush administration to set a "timetable for withdrawal". Not a "time horizon" as the administration-spinmiesters like to say; a Timetable, which means a fixed time when the United States must leave. So, if the Iraqi government has asked the US to leave; where is the "political solution" the surge was supposed to create? There isn't one. The mission has failed; it's as plain as day. This is not an arguable point.
Continued on Page 49
#3
The author, presumably a sunni arab muslim do has a point regarding the ethnic cleasing of sunni (about half left the country IIRC), but that bothers him and it is a war crime only because, well, they are arab sunnis, and such things are NOT to happen to arab sunnis, arab sunnis are the top dogs, they rule supreme over lesser races and creeds.
The irony is very rich. I don't know how iraq will turn out, don't care much, apart for what it will mean in the larger picture, and I only regret US and western deaths and Christians being chazed out (but it's a larger phenomenon of ethnci cleasing, ongoing since quite some time and that this author doesn't seem to care about, strangely), but regardless of what happens eventually, having the Master Race kicked in the nuts is very satisfying. I know it's petty, but it's GOOD.
He lives at 16108 88th St SE, Snohomish WA, having recently sold he and wife Joan's 24-year farmhouse for $285k and moved down the road to rent a 1200sqft home with horse ranch. He operates a landscaping business called Whitney's Gardening.
He's written scores of BS articles
listed here.
His self-written bio is here
(the chicken-sh*t can't/won't publish his own website, apparently)
And here's a piece dedicated to exposing Mike Whitney
Just because the news touts that Olmert is going to exit stage left in September doesn't mean that Israel is out of the woods.
Not by a long shot.
Olmert is still looking to seal a deal, and Israel's national security will suffer for it. Also, watch for the US to grease the skids and make a deal happen, even though it isn't in either the US or Israeli long term security interests to make a deal with terrorist regimes that seek nothing less than Israel's destruction and aren't afraid to say so.
You are probably familiar with this semi-infamous statement of Barack Obama: "Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." But you may be unfamiliar with what came next out of Obama's mouth:
"You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language. You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here. They all speak English -- they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe. And all we can say is, 'Merci beaucoup.'"
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike ||
07/31/2008 12:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sometimes an American will be silent and not defend his country while abroad out of a politeness or an unwillingness to get into an arguement with the locals.
I for one went on an English language tour of the Rauthouse in Hamburg to fine America blamed for firebombing Hamburg (we didn't the British did) and for all sorts of other things (tour guide never mentioned why the US might have had a beef with Germany). My wife had to help me keep my anger in check.
It is my experience that most people are nice and decent and polite to travelers but there are some that are just plane ignorant fools no matter what country they are from and Europe seems to be knee deep in them.
#2
considering population and industry... wouldn't a second language of Mandarin, Hindi or Spanish make a whole lot more sense then French or German?
Merci beaucoup.
#3
French is the preferred language, and France the preferred destination, of the proper progressive liberal.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/31/2008 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm a language nut (Russian major, Spanish minor back in college, with a smattering of French). Hell, I like foreign languages so much I even married a foreigner.
That being said, if our little boy decides to learn Czech while we are here in Iowa (there's a lot of Czech and Slovak descendants here in SE Iowa, as evidenced by the fine selections of beer you can find most anywhere), I'd have to discourage him. Not because the language isn't lovely, but because the only European languages really worth studying any more are Spanish and possibly Portuguese....and that's solely because of the growing economic importance of Latin America.
I personally could care less if all my son ever learns of French is "merci beaucoup", or a few more selected phrases from Berlitz. If that's good enough for the Messiah (he speaks Bahasa Indonesia, but no French to my knowledge), it's good enough for him.
(And yeah....on the use of Russian in Eastern Europe.....I instantly "forgot" my Russian when I crossed the Estonian border back in the late 80's. Even then it was not a good idea to advertise that you were familiar with Russian. English or German was a much better choice if you didn't want to get your plate spit upon, get ignored by the sales help, etc. Russian was only useful in Prague for guesstimating what a sign meant, but I still wouldn't speak it in public.)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/31/2008 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Many of my fellow Americans were terribly embarrassed to be American.
That's because of the NEA and the education establishment brainwashing the kids from the start about all the warts of American history without all the tremendous accomplishments.
BTW English is the most prevalent second language on the planet. It is the basis for which other cultures communicate technology, science, medicine, aviation, etc. There's a reason for that and that is what the Obama's of the nation refuse to acknowledge. It wasn't done by conquest or enslavement. It was done freely in an open market of ideas and concepts.
#6
I spent 16 years of my 26-year military career overseas - in Latin America, Vietnam, Germany, and Great Britain. My overseas tours did a lot to make me proud of my nation and its people. The two things I found that most non-Americans didn't understand was how large our nation is, and how diverse our population. Because of THAT ignorance, a lot of their beliefs about Americans were false. If you can ever convince them that the United States, without Alaska and Hawaii, stretches as far as from Madrid to Moscow across, and from Stockholm to Malta top to bottom, then the idea of a single common language for such a large area becomes a miracle to them. Learning that ONE US state (Wyoming) is nearly the same size as the old FRG, with half the population of Hamburg, astounds them.
There is a lot about this nation that isn't great, most of which happened before I was born. There are even more things about this nation to be proud about. If you're not proud to be a citizen of the nation that put the first man on the moon, that does more to aid others (the tsunami relief to Indonesia, for one), the nation that has defeated communism and gained the freedom of a half-dozen nations, that has such a long list of "firsts" and "discoveries" it would take a rather large book to list them all, that also defeated "National Socialism (Germany)" and militant expansionism (Japan), then there's something terribly wrong with you. Perhaps it would be best for all those Obamabots to go elsewhere and become citizens of nations they CAN be proud of, since they're so deficient in patriotism and love of THIS country.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/31/2008 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Blondie, you get around. Desert, swamp, cornfields. Anywhooo, I think there's lots of Czechs in Cedar Rapids. In fact, I believe they had a Czech Village section of town where original settlers gathered. Unfortunately, I think the recent flood destroyed most of it. Are you at the U of I ?
But yes, there was a large Czech community in Cedar Rapids that got flooded this summer. They are trying to rebuild the National Czech & Slovak Museum downtown, and I hope they are successful.
(I'm in a little town in between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City....we were lucky and were spared the devastation.)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/31/2008 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
There is a growing confidence among officers, diplomats, and politicians that a constitutional Iraq is going to make it. We don't hear much anymore of trisecting the country, much less pulling all American troops out in defeat.
The United States did not invade Iraq to "stop the violence". That was never the goal. So, it's foolish to say that the surge achieved its objective. It hasn't. Nor has the surge "created the space for a political solution"; another meaningless slogan regurgitated endlessly by the Bush troupe. 
