WE DON'T SEND KIDS TO FIGHT. WE SEND MEN AND WOMEN

The Phil Hendrie Blog ^ | August 05, 2005 | Phil Hendrie

[WackySam]

WE DON'T SEND KIDS TO FIGHT. WE SEND MEN AND WOMEN

I recently watched Michael Moore bait Bill O'Reilly on O'Reilly's TV show into answering the emotionally charged and completely beside-the -point question, "Would you send your child to fight this (Iraq) war?" O'Reilly squirmed and aimlessly pointed his pencil, knowing he had been asked something "every mother and father worry about." He had to scramble fast to the high ground on this one and since he's "looking out for you" he sputtered something about how he would never send his kid but that it was really "the President's call."

I screamed the only truthful answer at the television, knowing no one would hear it and, worst of all, no one would be figuring it out for themselves anytime soon.

To call the great professional men and women who serve in our armed forces "kids" is a common semantical tactic employed by my Poseur Leftist friends. They know that by tossing this little hand grenade the hope one would have for a debate on fact, as opposed to hysterical rumor, flies right out the window. Who can not, at a moment like that, bow their head, and ponder ever so deeply, the meaning of children dying in a war.

Ladies and Gentlemen, calling these great people, part of the best trained and best equipped military in the history of the world, "kids" is an obscene insult.

It is, frankly, intended as one.

It implies that these volunteer men and women are unable to decide for themselves their choice of career and unable to understand the mission they are on. It also sets up the "baby-killer" and "torturer" posit, should my phony-left, anti-war friends choose to use it. And finally, it allows my Posing Left pals to pretend solicitude and sympathy for these poor, unfortunate, thoroughly manipulated-by-George Bush "kids." Then they combine the term "kid" in relation to our soldiers with a tireless search of the Internet for pictures of dead Iraqi babies. They put the two together and, for the brain-dead, have successfully inferred that our men and women in uniform are, in fact, war criminals. And they did it all without having to think or reason through anything. This is what is called propaganda, a sort of slap-dash Fahrenheit 9/11.*

Calling professional and very adult American soldiers "kids" is only one component of the emotional ammo dump the Poseur-Left keeps in supply. Unsubstantiated but oft-repeated and provocative charges of war crime, torture and over-kill keep the easily confused all the more easily confused. The very people who ask for infinitesimal and undeniable proof of WMD's and terror links offer nothing but ludicrous rumor and gossip to bolster their arguments. I will now defuse the more popular hysterics my Phony-Leftist friends engage in:

There is no proof that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by coalition fire since the beginning of the war contrary to claims. The Johns Hopkins Report is flawed and "incomplete" by the admission of the very people who compiled it. Maybe the people who cite it should read it

There is no proof of a cover-up at Abu Gharib. This is still being jaw-jacked. In fact, the Army press release announcing its investigation was out three months before the press picked it up. You know, press release...press? Get it?

There is no proof that MURDER or RAPE was committed at Abu Gharib, a charge made early and often. We were promised pictures, testimony, the whole enchilada. Nothing.

There is no proof that torture has been used at Guantanamo, despite, as one e-mailer said to me, it was "undeniable and fully substantiated." The Geneva Accords are very clear as to what constitutes torture. Among techniques ALLOWED under the Geneva Accords are sleep deprivation and the use of lights. Again, the people that cite them ought to read them.

Guys like Moore keep meticulous records and files on every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan that ever sent an e-mail expressing fear, doubt and loneliness. Unquestionably, these are the moods, however vacillating, of the soldier. For Moore, they represent a new tune to jam in the juke box. It's called "Our Soldiers Are Afraid And Don't Like George." It's actually a re-recording of one done in 1970 called "Our Soldiers Don't Believe In This Bull Crap War No More." Play it loud and often and this minority of depressed and frightened soldiers becomes a Vietnam-style majority. All we need are hundreds of thousands of mothers marching in the streets of Iowa with coffins containing their dead sons for the whole "Power to the People," glory-of-it-all to kick in.

After asking us to swallow these boatloads of horse dung, wipe our mouths and smile, the Posers on the Left are not near finished. They can now solemnly claim they "support the troops." Or maybe it's "support the kids?" Ask the professional men and women who are our pride and honor in Iraq if they buy it. Their answer is to support the troops you must support their mission. So Poseurs, you can step off with that baloney too.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, our country has lost IN COMBAT 1449 men and women. (I took that from Anti-War.com. It might be bull crap but I figure they have no interest in revising the number DOWN. The more dead for them, the better) That is roughly 700 men and women a year. The Vietnam war took around 3,000 soldiers a year. In World War Two, we would lose up to 2,000 soldiers in one battle. That was the same World War Two embraced by liberals and leftists.

Never has a war been prosecuted in a more moral fashion, from the attempt at taking Hussein out early, before the commencement of hostilities, with sea-based missiles to the rules of engagement card that every American soldier carries with him to the open prosecution of the Abu Gharib principles to the humanity of our great men and women handing out candy or providing medicine to the Iraq people.

And never has an American soldier been more misrepresented, exploited and belittled by a so-called anti-war movement than today's American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Phil

[RightOnline]

Oh, bullshit. My oldest kid is a 2nd Lt. in the US Army and a FReeper.......a Stryker platoon commander. Great kid, he is. He also happens to be a fine young man and a great officer; a terrific leader.


.....and yes, if he is aked to go, he will (as if I have a goddamned thing to say about it; parents don't "send" their kids to Iraq, Moore) because it's his duty. I don't have to like it. I know it's important work, and he's extremely well trained and has great troops under his command. If he goes, I'll worry like hell. I won't like it as a parent. Do I expect him to go, however, and just pray like the dickens he returns safely? Of course.

Moore is an idiot.