Rep. Allen West, American Hero
Allen Bernard West was a virtual unknown entity outside the U.S. Army before he burst on the political scene in the Republican rout of 2010 when he was elected the first GOP African-American congressman from Florida in 134 years.
West is also an un-sung American hero.
Although I had read Rep. West was a conservative and Tea Party supporter, I hadn’t known anything about his military record or his outspoken and heroic sense of patriotism until recently.
The 50 year old West, who followed generations of his family in joining the Army in 1983, served for 21 years in the 325th Airborne Battalion Combat Team, the 377th Field Artillery Regiment, and the First Infantry Division among other posts, saw action in both Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and retired as a lieutenant colonel in 2004.
Those achievements alone command the respect and admiration of every American. On the other hand, the incident that led to his forced retirement deserves exposure as an example of our military’s official gutlessness and ignorance in conducting a war.
LTC West was relieved of his command after he was accused of assaulting an Iraqi prisoner in Taji suspected of plotting to ambush his men.
During intense combat, a few of those men under West’s command were captured and one suspected insurgent was also captured.
With the lives of American soldiers in danger and knowing what Iraqis customarily did to captives, when our interrogators were getting nowhere in locating the American prisoners, West forcefully demanded the Iraqi reveal the location of his soldiers. When he still refused, West placed his pistol near the prisoner’s crotch, fired, and advised him the next shot wouldn’t miss.
Evidently not as dumb as he looked and hoping to procreate more jihadists, the prisoner spilled his guts, the Americans were rescued, a jihadist-sympathizer alleged Lieutenant Colonel West had been guilty of misconduct, and the Army drummed him out.
Not the jihadist-sympathizer, LTC West. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12222.)
Showing posts with label IRAQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRAQ. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2012
Monday, October 24, 2011
What Hath Obama Wrought?
What Hath Obama Wrought?
Okay, let’s give the man some credit, but not too much.
President Barack Hussein Obama is claiming his drawdown of America’s forces in Afghanistan enabled the capture and summary execution by Navy Seal Team Six of Osama bin Laden and he has announced the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by year’s end.
The former is a stretch but plausible even if then-CIA Director Leon Panetta actually gave the order to get Osama while Obama went to bed. At least the president didn’t obstruct the operation.
The Iraq bug-out will constitute an accomplishment only if our departure doesn’t send a signal to neighboring Iran to fill the vacuum, a distinct possibility that terrifies many Iraqis and may make them long for the good, old days of Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons.
When Obama concludes what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan and withdraws our troops from that sorry land, a comparable disaster could ensue.
Demonstrating his contempt for the nation that put him in power, Afghani President Hamid Karzai has already declared an alliance with another former U.S. friend, Pakistan, and when his government implodes under the weight of corruption, America will find itself back to square one in the region.
Yet another questionable plus in the Obama column is his non-interference with the drone that took out the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Obama hasn’t boasted much about that action since al-Awlaki was an American citizen and killing him is widely interpreted as an unconstitutional abuse of power by our constitutional-scholar president.
None of those accomplishments-by-inaction will endear him to peaceniks in his Democrat Party nor to members of the committee that awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize but that’s a whole other story as is whether they will help him win re-election with the American economy mired in the doldrums.
After the plaudits for those questionable coups subside, the most immediate issue on Obama’s foreign policy table right now is, What has he wrought in the Mideast?
What comes to mind is the age-old aphorism that the devil you know sure beats the devil you don’t. America’s current president has rescued a number of devils at the same time he has sent some to Hell.
What hath Obama wrought?
In the Libyan non-war, the euphemestic “kinetic military action” Obama swore would last days not weeks and went on for seven months, our Tomahawk missiles and drones softened up the defenses of Col. Khadafi’s loyalists and put him on the run until rebel forces trapped him in a sewer drain and executed him.
Libya thus rid itself and the world of the mad dog, a man who had called Obama ”our son” and whose friendship was reciprocated by our president before he turned on his “dad.” In turn, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, who used to address Obama as “brother,” then asked his bro, “Who the hell do you think you are?”
More pertinent questions now would be, What have you done, who and what are taking Khadafi’s place, and what now? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5779.)
Okay, let’s give the man some credit, but not too much.
President Barack Hussein Obama is claiming his drawdown of America’s forces in Afghanistan enabled the capture and summary execution by Navy Seal Team Six of Osama bin Laden and he has announced the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by year’s end.
The former is a stretch but plausible even if then-CIA Director Leon Panetta actually gave the order to get Osama while Obama went to bed. At least the president didn’t obstruct the operation.
The Iraq bug-out will constitute an accomplishment only if our departure doesn’t send a signal to neighboring Iran to fill the vacuum, a distinct possibility that terrifies many Iraqis and may make them long for the good, old days of Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons.
When Obama concludes what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan and withdraws our troops from that sorry land, a comparable disaster could ensue.
Demonstrating his contempt for the nation that put him in power, Afghani President Hamid Karzai has already declared an alliance with another former U.S. friend, Pakistan, and when his government implodes under the weight of corruption, America will find itself back to square one in the region.
Yet another questionable plus in the Obama column is his non-interference with the drone that took out the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Obama hasn’t boasted much about that action since al-Awlaki was an American citizen and killing him is widely interpreted as an unconstitutional abuse of power by our constitutional-scholar president.
None of those accomplishments-by-inaction will endear him to peaceniks in his Democrat Party nor to members of the committee that awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize but that’s a whole other story as is whether they will help him win re-election with the American economy mired in the doldrums.
After the plaudits for those questionable coups subside, the most immediate issue on Obama’s foreign policy table right now is, What has he wrought in the Mideast?
What comes to mind is the age-old aphorism that the devil you know sure beats the devil you don’t. America’s current president has rescued a number of devils at the same time he has sent some to Hell.
What hath Obama wrought?
In the Libyan non-war, the euphemestic “kinetic military action” Obama swore would last days not weeks and went on for seven months, our Tomahawk missiles and drones softened up the defenses of Col. Khadafi’s loyalists and put him on the run until rebel forces trapped him in a sewer drain and executed him.
Libya thus rid itself and the world of the mad dog, a man who had called Obama ”our son” and whose friendship was reciprocated by our president before he turned on his “dad.” In turn, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, who used to address Obama as “brother,” then asked his bro, “Who the hell do you think you are?”
More pertinent questions now would be, What have you done, who and what are taking Khadafi’s place, and what now? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5779.)
Monday, September 26, 2011
Proofs that Darwin Was Right: The Iraq-Iran Hikers
Proof that Darwin Was Right: The Iraq-Iran Hikers
The ”Darwin Award” is conferred on individuals who unknowingly gave their all in the inadvertent interests of preserving humanity’s gene pool by expiring in the process of committing acts of amazing stupidity and thereby removing themselves from the danger of further corrupting the genetic makeup of the human species.
Without referencing darwinism and the survival of the fittest, Spike TV features any number of deserving Darwin Awards winners on “1000 Ways to Die,” a ghoulish series on how people meet their Maker via wooden-headed choices.
Usually conferred posthumously, exceptions should be granted for giving a “Darwin” to the recently-released Iraq, (or was it Iran?) hikers.
Most Americans were delighted when Shane Bower and Josh Fattal were finally set free by the Iranians and were able to re-join fellow hiker Sarah Shourd on American soil after what the HuffingtonPost.com a 2-year “saga,” a term most often reserved to describe heroic adventures rather than idiotic blunders.
America may be desperate for heroes but Bower, Fattal, and Shourd hardly fit the bill.
In an impressive display of Islamic magnanimity toward a gender customarily stoned to death for much less grievous offenses than violating Iranian territorial integrity–and alleged spying–Shourd was released in 2010.
All three had been captured the year before as they blithely traversed the Iraq-Iran border since, apparently, the millions of acres of national parkland, untrammeled mountains, woods, and deserts available to hikers throughout the United States and other civilized countries held no attraction or opportunities for adventure.
Instead Bower, Fattal, and Shourd chose what they believed to be Iraq’s Kurdish region, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5563.)
The ”Darwin Award” is conferred on individuals who unknowingly gave their all in the inadvertent interests of preserving humanity’s gene pool by expiring in the process of committing acts of amazing stupidity and thereby removing themselves from the danger of further corrupting the genetic makeup of the human species.
Without referencing darwinism and the survival of the fittest, Spike TV features any number of deserving Darwin Awards winners on “1000 Ways to Die,” a ghoulish series on how people meet their Maker via wooden-headed choices.
Usually conferred posthumously, exceptions should be granted for giving a “Darwin” to the recently-released Iraq, (or was it Iran?) hikers.
Most Americans were delighted when Shane Bower and Josh Fattal were finally set free by the Iranians and were able to re-join fellow hiker Sarah Shourd on American soil after what the HuffingtonPost.com a 2-year “saga,” a term most often reserved to describe heroic adventures rather than idiotic blunders.
America may be desperate for heroes but Bower, Fattal, and Shourd hardly fit the bill.
In an impressive display of Islamic magnanimity toward a gender customarily stoned to death for much less grievous offenses than violating Iranian territorial integrity–and alleged spying–Shourd was released in 2010.
All three had been captured the year before as they blithely traversed the Iraq-Iran border since, apparently, the millions of acres of national parkland, untrammeled mountains, woods, and deserts available to hikers throughout the United States and other civilized countries held no attraction or opportunities for adventure.
Instead Bower, Fattal, and Shourd chose what they believed to be Iraq’s Kurdish region, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5563.)
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Plame Truth vs, "Fair Game"
The Plame Truth vs. "Fair Game"
Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, the multi-lingual, twice-married Penn State grad and holder of 2 graduate degrees, long-time CIA NOC, (non-official cover, deep-cover officer), central figure in the 2003-2005 Washington ”Plamegate” controversy, can now add “movie consultant” to her already chock-full résumé.
She and husband, former abmbassador Joseph P. (Joe) Wilson IV, consulted on director Doug Liman’s new movie, Fair Game, featuring Naomi Watts as Valerie and Sean Penn as Joe. Fair Game is Hollywood’s latest attempt to re-write history.
I know nothing of the political leanings of Naomi but the presence of Penn in the cast is a dead giveaway that this is another in the long line of Oliver Stone-type films that are based on Hollywood revisionism: If you don’t like history then just change it.
If wife Valerie was the central figure in Plamegate, hubby Joe Wilson, thrice-wed career civil servant, diplomat and ambassador for four years to inconsequential African states with a flair for the dramatic–he once wore a noose around his neck in defiance of Saddam Hussein–was the catalyst.
Without going into depth on Plamegate, suffice to say it was far more a political stunt meant to undermine President George W. Bush’s presidency and the American invasion of Iraq than a scandal.
Briefly: . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2541)
Valerie Elise Plame Wilson, the multi-lingual, twice-married Penn State grad and holder of 2 graduate degrees, long-time CIA NOC, (non-official cover, deep-cover officer), central figure in the 2003-2005 Washington ”Plamegate” controversy, can now add “movie consultant” to her already chock-full résumé.
She and husband, former abmbassador Joseph P. (Joe) Wilson IV, consulted on director Doug Liman’s new movie, Fair Game, featuring Naomi Watts as Valerie and Sean Penn as Joe. Fair Game is Hollywood’s latest attempt to re-write history.
I know nothing of the political leanings of Naomi but the presence of Penn in the cast is a dead giveaway that this is another in the long line of Oliver Stone-type films that are based on Hollywood revisionism: If you don’t like history then just change it.
If wife Valerie was the central figure in Plamegate, hubby Joe Wilson, thrice-wed career civil servant, diplomat and ambassador for four years to inconsequential African states with a flair for the dramatic–he once wore a noose around his neck in defiance of Saddam Hussein–was the catalyst.
Without going into depth on Plamegate, suffice to say it was far more a political stunt meant to undermine President George W. Bush’s presidency and the American invasion of Iraq than a scandal.
Briefly: . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2541)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wars and Rumors of Wars Part Two
Wars and Rumors of War Part Two
People and nations being what they are, our world has never been starved for war but rarely in history have so many wars of consequence been threatened which are contemporaneous with one another.
All wars are consequential, of course, but most are limited in scope to tribes or other small groups and many are of the civil war variety contained within a single country. The continent of Africa is a case in point.
Today we face three very hot spots any one of which could erupt into a widespread conflagration with the potential of involving various other nations if not resulting in World War III.
An overview of the threats:
Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. has been mired in those two interrelated hellholes for almost nine and for seven years respectively and though the president has announced plans to pack up and bug out of both, the outcomes are far from undecided.
The British were defeated by the Afghanis in the 19th century, the Russians in the 2oth. If we are seen as retreating or if we should lose the upcoming, crucial battle in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, it will be seen as yet another sign of weakness. In this age of terrorism, that’s not a good image to project. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1702)
People and nations being what they are, our world has never been starved for war but rarely in history have so many wars of consequence been threatened which are contemporaneous with one another.
All wars are consequential, of course, but most are limited in scope to tribes or other small groups and many are of the civil war variety contained within a single country. The continent of Africa is a case in point.
Today we face three very hot spots any one of which could erupt into a widespread conflagration with the potential of involving various other nations if not resulting in World War III.
An overview of the threats:
Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. has been mired in those two interrelated hellholes for almost nine and for seven years respectively and though the president has announced plans to pack up and bug out of both, the outcomes are far from undecided.
The British were defeated by the Afghanis in the 19th century, the Russians in the 2oth. If we are seen as retreating or if we should lose the upcoming, crucial battle in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, it will be seen as yet another sign of weakness. In this age of terrorism, that’s not a good image to project. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1702)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wars and Rumors of War
Wars and Rumors of War
The handwriting is all over White House walls: The U.S. will cut and run out of Afghanistan, and probably out of Iraq, if things get dicey there too.
In a repeat of our sorry experiences in Korea in the 50’s and in Viet Nam in the 70’s, President Obama will soon declare victory in Afghanistan and pack up all our cares and woes and retreat under fire from that chaotic nation, the same nation that was the breeding ground for the 9/11 maniacs.
Iraq may follow as Obama tries to placate the multitude of defeatists in the Democratic Party.
“Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it,” [Lt. General Stanley] McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander’s Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.”
“Under-resourcing”=an inadequate number of boots on the ground.
He has asked for 60,000 additional troops to insure the defeat of the growing strength of the Taliban, a surge, if you will, the same tactic that Democrats scorned when Bush supplemented the boots in Iraq and which resulted in a tentative victory in that country.
“McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. ‘risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.’ ”
Obama’s response? ”I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration:” http://bit.ly/4E8Wvi.
That says it all, folks. In the recent tradition of the new Democratic Party, Obama will deftly tuck America’s tail between its legs and scurry off in failure and ignominy.
In related news, another retreat, this time from close allies and supporters Poland and Czechoslovakia, Obama has cancelled plans for a missile defense/radar system in those countries.
Rather than negotiate a tit-for-tat deal with the Russians, the president unilaterally undercut two valuable friends in Eastern Europe. Interviewed on “Face the Nation,” he explained, “My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians. The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”
Oh, really, Mr. Obama?
So, “our defense posture” has no bearing on strategic moves in Moscow? Are you saying . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1232)
The handwriting is all over White House walls: The U.S. will cut and run out of Afghanistan, and probably out of Iraq, if things get dicey there too.
In a repeat of our sorry experiences in Korea in the 50’s and in Viet Nam in the 70’s, President Obama will soon declare victory in Afghanistan and pack up all our cares and woes and retreat under fire from that chaotic nation, the same nation that was the breeding ground for the 9/11 maniacs.
Iraq may follow as Obama tries to placate the multitude of defeatists in the Democratic Party.
“Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it,” [Lt. General Stanley] McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander’s Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.”
“Under-resourcing”=an inadequate number of boots on the ground.
He has asked for 60,000 additional troops to insure the defeat of the growing strength of the Taliban, a surge, if you will, the same tactic that Democrats scorned when Bush supplemented the boots in Iraq and which resulted in a tentative victory in that country.
“McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. ‘risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.’ ”
Obama’s response? ”I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration:” http://bit.ly/4E8Wvi.
That says it all, folks. In the recent tradition of the new Democratic Party, Obama will deftly tuck America’s tail between its legs and scurry off in failure and ignominy.
In related news, another retreat, this time from close allies and supporters Poland and Czechoslovakia, Obama has cancelled plans for a missile defense/radar system in those countries.
Rather than negotiate a tit-for-tat deal with the Russians, the president unilaterally undercut two valuable friends in Eastern Europe. Interviewed on “Face the Nation,” he explained, “My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians. The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”
Oh, really, Mr. Obama?
So, “our defense posture” has no bearing on strategic moves in Moscow? Are you saying . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1232)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rape, War, and Sharia Law
Rape, War, and Sharia Law in Muslim Nations
Content: “I had thought it was simple.” Thus said the 20 year old brother of a 14 year old Afghani rape victim after he was arrested for using a razor blade to abort his sister’s baby.
The young girl had been raped by a construction worker and had the further misfortune of residing in an orthodox Islamic community where an illegitimate birth meant that she and her family would be treated like pariahs by their fellow Muslims. So her brother, Ali, took her to a cowshed and, as her mother helped restrain her, used the razor blade to slice open her womb. He removed the baby, buried it, then stitched up the wound with coarse string used to tie potato sacks. Ten days later, the girl was taken on a 30 mile donkey ride to a provincial hospital suffering from infection and later, to protect her from family and community members, was evacuated to Bagram Air Base where she remained in critical condition: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41777.
Although such lurid and grotesque tales are not unheard of in Western, generally Christian societies, they rarely if ever result from religious motivations. More likely it is a jealous rival or a psychotic, wannabe mother who would perpetrate such acts. Sharia Law, based on the Koran or Qur’an, however, condones such measures to atone for the shame visited upon a family by the sin of being a rape victim.
The other side of the Koranic coin, the rapist’s side, is far more forgiving. The Koran mentions no specific punishment for rapists, the probable reason for their receiving light or no civil penalties, while the victim may receive a hundred lashes for causing the crime. The girls, if not stoned to death, are shunned by their fellow Muslims and their opportunities for a future marriage are nil.
Demonstrating a serious inconsistency, that same Koran denounces rape, except in the event of mitigating circumstances, namely the woman’s religion: The Koran encourages the rape of non-Muslim women, according to more than one source, including http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.australian/browse_thread/thread/74aa640b4928eaaa, which cites a number of verses to support that view.: “Koran clearly sanctions this. No Muslims can deny these verses. They are called “ma malakat aymanukum…. The Koran verses are: 23-6, 33-50, 33-52, 33-55, 70-30.”
That sanction and that crime against the Afghani girl and what they say about Muslim thought are interrelated with our wars in the Mideast.
As the war in Iraq seemingly winds down toward a victorious conclusion and as the companion war...
(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)