I guess all bad things must come to a beginning, so here's my first unofficial entry into the "blogosphere." I started bouncing around various blogs about a year ago, and I should have started one up last year while I was in Mosul with the 101st Airborne Division. Instead, I periodically sent blast emails to all concerned and wound up having to answer a million grateful replies, which I did to the best of my ability. Yes, in retrospect, blogging would have been much easier. This is a "milblog," so I'm going to post war-related information first and foremost. I won't spew pro-war propaganda or "go get 'em" rhetoric. I'll simply offer a refreshing alternative to the doom and destruction that you get from the mainstream media (MSM). I don't think the MSM has an anti-American bias, and I don't think they willingly give terrorists a voice. I think they chase profits. Nothing generates profits in the world of journalism better than sex (Lyndie England is pregnant and she's pointing at naked genitalia!), scandal (Abu Ghraib, faulty intel, Chalabi), and violence (car bombs, car bombs, and more car bombs). Unfortunately, the media's need for profits is often to the advantage of our enemy (and struggling Presidential candidates, but that's another story). This upsets a lot of people, but we have to remember that capitalism is our way of life. It's what we're fighting for. We can't change how the news industry reports the news, but we CAN make a difference- we can share information using all this great technology that REALLY smart Americans (not Al Gore) created many years ago. If you don't think blogs can have an impact, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Dan Rather. Blogs have already changed the face of the media, and they're just getting started. Might as well get used to it…
Where do I stand?
In the interest of full disclosure, I lean right of center. I'm not a right-wing freak, but I'm not afraid of those who are. My main concern is the radicals on the left. It's not just because they agree with terrorists about so many things- it's all the lies and propaganda. I've never seen them present facts, yet they always seem to be armed with facts. Example: Michael Moore says Bush was "in bed" with the Saudis in the plot to bring down the towers (clearly not a fact). He proves this by pointing out that a guy who served with Bush in Texas 35 years ago (fact) handled a bank account for one of bin Laden's 43 half step-brothers or 4th cousins or whatever (fact). He then lists about 20 other facts with the same kind of smoke-and-mirrors spin, and he winds up the illusion of infallibility. He proves that Iraq was a peace-loving utopia (clearly not a fact) by showing a video clip of of children playing in a Baghdad playgroud (fact). It's clearly outrageous, but SO MANY people buy into it. Not because they're really THAT ignorant, but because they really WANT to believe it. It's strange, and I'd never be able to explain it as well as Ann Coulter does in this Frontpage interview. As for me, I'm more in line with former lefty Christopher Hitchens. I think Bill O'Reilly is the "most fair" talking-head pundit out there right now, and I think he represents the "mainstream" view of America at large. I enjoy the sometimes over-the-top rantings of right-wing pundits like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and even the infamous Rush Limbaugh. I think it's their passionate hatred of the left that I find so amusing. I have liberal friends and family members (and I love them all!), but I respectfully disagree with them and move on (.org) when issues arise, which doesn't happen often. My brother is actually a stark-raving lefty, and if you don't believe me, check out his looney-toonish website. Hey, don't laugh- he'll be famous one day.
Why do I support the War in Iraq?
First, I'll say that it has nothing to do with the fact that I've been an active participant in it since it started. I decided that it was the right thing to do long before I went over there two Februaries ago. I don't think it would be right for me to say that the invasion was "right" and anyone who disagrees is "wrong." Mostly because I know that there are LOTS of people who are much smarter than I (PhD's, Professors, Generals, etc) who disagree with me. What qualifies me to be smarter than them? My bachelor's degree and my 1+ year of combat experience? Not even. I also realize that there are LOTS of people (PhD's, Professors, Generals, etc) who AGREE with me. Both sides of the debate are represented by some of the greatest minds on this planet. These great minds arrived at different conclusions based on what they've learned in life, how they were raised, and what they believe. As long as we debate fairly, nobody gets hurt. My concern is when people (like Mike Moore) take a "back road" in order to support their argument- trying to promote horrible theories that they know for a fact aren't true. It's a "means" justifies the "end" sort of tactic that is often dangerous and irresponsible during time of war. When people ask me why I believe in the invasion and subsequent occupation, I try to explain it in 20 words or less, but I rarely make any sense. If you really want a good rundown of how I see things, I'd prefer you get it from smarter folks than I. Check out this Slate.com article by Christopher Hitchens. You also need to browse The Clash of Civilizations and the Great Caliphate by Larry Abraham. I'd also recommend Undeclared World War III by Haim Harari. It's all good reading, I assure you. I'll be posting things from time to time, and hopefully we'll all learn a few things. Take care, and thanks for stopping by.