Friday, August 06, 2004

John Kerry is a Straight Shooter

I have long said that American politics today are still shaped largely by the Vietnam War era. It was then that radical left-wing liberalism took hold within the Democrat party and flourished into what we have seen over the past 30 or 40 years. On the other hand, the Republicans, starting with Richard Nixon, have long been cast as warmongers and the enemy of the poor, minorities, and women. In fact, one of the core elements of the Democrat party's ideology is anti-war "pacifism". They still FERVENTLY subscribe to this belief because they saw the United States as waging a corporate-driven war against the peaceful agrarian Vietnamese people. They point to atrocities that were committed against the Vietnamese and proclaim the righteousness of their anti-war and anti-Republican beliefs.

Now what I find tremendously ironic is that here in the 2004 presidential election campaign the Democrats, long believers in a "pacifist" anti-war philosophy based on their perspective on the Vietnam War, are rallying behind their candidate who personally admitted to having shot in the back and killed a Vietnamese boy who was running away from him. This candidate is, of course, John F. Kerry. Did you get that?

Democrat presidential candidate John F. Kerry admits to having shot and killed a fleeing teenage boy.

Now, two of the biggest complaints that the Republicans level toward John F. Kerry is that he is rarely very specific with what he intends to do and also that he flip-flops back and forth on issues. In other words, Kerry is not a "straight shooter." Some people say that I always agree with the Republican Party's positions. This is not always true. This is one of those times. So here it goes...

You COULD call John Kerry a "straight shooter" if he is firing at fleeing Vietnamese children!

- The American Hawk

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Learn The Facts Before you Vote!

Learn The Facts Before you Vote!


Just think about....

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

Worst president in history?

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put Nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history ?

Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!

Our military is GREAT!

Our president is doing a GREAT job!

- The American Hawk

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Extremely sad...

My family members and I visited a funeral home near my home town last night to pay our respects to an American soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.  His wife and young daughters live in a small rental property that my family owns.  My brother went to school with him and other members of my family knew him and his family.

His body was under guard and his rifle, helmet, and boots were displayed next to his casket.  I can't find words to describe how sad it was to see this man in uniform who will never see his family, friends, sunshine, fall color, snowfall, flowers, holidays, the lakes, or anything else in this life ever again.

How could any words encompass the enormity of the sacrifice that he and his family have made?

Stryker Brigade News

- The American Hawk

Thursday, July 15, 2004

A Refreshing Perspective on Iraq

Dawn Over Baghdad

- The American Hawk

Monday, July 12, 2004

Groom's Maids!?!?!

The discussion of "gay marriage" is in the news frequently these days. Basically, my feelings mirror those of most that I hear from people who are against it. The belief is that it will cheapen the institution of marriage. Marriage will no longer be what it always was and will instead be whatever anybody wants it to be. If we are no longer going to stop at restricting it to only men and women, why will we stop at restricting it to just humans? What if some crazy environmentalist decides she wants to marry a particular tree? Can she marry it? Why not? What if some guy decides that a particular sheep he has seen in a nearby barnyard is the love of his life and wants to enter into matrimony with it? Someday he'll probably be able to do so. Is that what we really want? I know this sounds crazy today, but who knows where the discussion will lead tomorrow. If you have elderly grandparents, just ask them how crazy the idea of homosexuals being allowed to officially marry each other would have been had it been discussed back in the 1920's or 1930's. Now look where we are. A couple of other things really bother me about this whole issue.

The first is the way that the news media, true to form, has failed to challenge the most important argument being offered by proponents of gay marriage. That argument is "Why shouldn't 'we' have the same rights as straight couples?" You hear that argument put forth by proponents of gay marriage every single time the matter is discussed in the media. In fact, the entire movement to legalize gay marriage is built on the suggestion that gays are unfairly treated because they don't have the same rights as heterosexuals. Well, The American Hawk has a response to that argument. I want all of my readers to learn the following argument and I want you to shout it back at the television every time some proponent of gay marriage cries about not having the same rights. Here it goes...


We already have the same rights. What proponents of gay marriage want is not for all of us to finally be given the same rights. In fact, what these folks really want, whether they even realize it, is for something entirely new to be visited upon society. The argument upon which the entire movement is based is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, what they want is something for which only a small percentage of the people would vote to enact into law. This brings up the other thing that bothers me.

The way in which the politics surrounding the issue is playing out is utterly disgusting. In poll after poll the support for gay marriage is pitifully small. It is just not a change that very many people want. Yet, it is probably going to come about. Isn't America about majority rule you might ask? Not anymore really. America is fast becoming about the tyranny of the minority. All you need is one judge at the local level to agree with you and whatever law the majority of the people managed to pass is suddenly meaningless. This isn't right. The will of the majority on issues such as this should mean something but it doesn't anymore. Instead, the will of even a small group of "activists" becomes the way of the land and to hell with what ordinary Americans want.

Don't get me wrong. I really don't care if two men or two women want to share their lives in a manner that resembles marriage. I don't dislike gay people either. I'm all about freedom and if that lifestyle is what some people choose I don't think it is any of my business. But marriage is a core institution in our society that inherently involves a man and a woman. Lets leave it that way.

President Bush has been a strident opponent of gay marriage from day one. He hasn't waffled or ducked the issue. He has taken a stand. If you agree with him, you might want to think about supporting him.

- The American Hawk

Sunday, July 11, 2004

A Master Stroke

In a previous post I described what I believe is the main reason for the US presence in Iraq. In case you need a refresher I'll restate this reason:


I fervently believe this because it makes so much sense given what has happened in the last year and change. You must look at every piece of news that comes out of Iraq, whether good or bad, from this perspective. Once you learn to see the conflict in Iraq for what it really is, it all makes perfect sense. The daily gun battles, the rounding up of Hussein loyalists, the killing of Al-Zarqawi or Bin Laden followers, the destruction of arms caches, the finding of mustard and nerve gas (in case you hadn't noticed the scant reporting...we are finding Weapons of Mass Destruction), the dollars and resources our enemies our undoubtedly channeling into Iraq...all of happening over there not here.

...and it is getting even better. A recent story posted at Al-Sabah, a Middle Eastern news source, described something wonderful and something new that is helping America in its fight against the terrorists as well as helping the good people of Iraq fortify their free and prosperous future. The Iraqis are now using their intimate knowledge of their own country to locate, target, and exterminate the enemies of freedom.

We've managed to get Arabs who are seeking freedom and prosperity to help us kill the enemies of the free world.

This isn't brilliant...It is a MASTER STROKE!!!

The story I am talking about follows:

Baghdad, As-Sabah , July 10, Page 1
In an operation to attack dens of terrorism in Baghdad, a platoon of the Iraqi National Guard has carried out a successful operation Wednesday against groups of Saddam's remnants and a number of Al-Zarqawi followers who were gathered in four buildings in the said street. That operation comes as a practical indication to transfer the initiative of the attack to the hand of the National Guard. "An accurate intelligence information reported a group of Saddam's men and Al-Zarqawi followers were crowded in four buildings in Haifa street" Mr. Hazim Sh'lan the minister of defense elaborated, adding that the operation started in installing search points in front of these buildings for instigating the hostile elements who thought they could control the battalion of the national guard. Clarifying the details of the operation, the minister said that the battalion was able to be sheltered and specify the hostile fire sources further for cordoning the four buildings in pure Iraqi efforts, saying that the multi-national forces took the role of the monitor by the helicopters. Fighting were occurred from floor to another, from flat to another, about 19 terrorists killed and nine others arrested. Meanwhile one member of the National Guard was killed and 12 others wounded. Among the prisoners and dead were a number of Arab infiltrators.

- The American Hawk

Friday, June 18, 2004

There is No Such Thing as Pacifism

Merriam-Webster defines the word "pacifism" as follows:

Main Entry: pac•i•fism
Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

To say that you are a pacifist because you believe in settling disputes by means other than war sounds nice. But what does it really mean when you have to put it into practice? Any answer that any pacifist gives would have to be based on some form of agreement between potentially warring parties whereby they found some common ground and avoided war. However, if a belligerent nation knew that its adversary faithfully embraced the pacifist ideal that belligerent nation would know that it could demand anything that it wanted from the pacifist nation in an effort "to find common ground.” Remember that under no circumstances would the pacifist nation resort to warfare to defend what it values against the belligerent nation. If it did have conditions that would lead it to war then it wouldn’t really be a pacifist nation it would be a “peace loving” nation which I believe is at least a little different. So what "pacifism" really means to the nation that embraces the ideal is really just a resignation to give its adversaries whatever they ultimately want so that war can be avoided.

This is not pacifism it is appeasement.

Thus you really can never be a can only be an appeaser. So there really is no such thing as pacifism in the end anyway. Furthermore…

You can never be an appeaser for long because eventually all appeasers will lose either their willingness to appease at all costs or their freedom to make the decision in the first place.

Do you see this? Once again…anything that a nation would do in the name of “pacifism” is really just some form of appeasement.

Those reading this might suggest that I am wrong and that all we have to do is find some means of getting the belligerents to be less brazen and then they won't demand unreasonable things and we won't have to even consider warfare to defend what we value. I would agree that this does work in some cases. Unfortunately, there will always eventually be a belligerent so maniacally bent on achieving something or other that they will resort to war at all costs. So you in turn will have to appease them or fight them. It is as simple as that.

I am sure that those who are critical of what I am saying here would avoid responding to the issue by countering with the evasive yet provocative question “So what is the United States then…it is certainly not pacifist but is it a belligerent nation or is it a ‘peace-loving’ nation?” That question is really about moral-equivalence which deserves broader treatment in a future post.

- The American Hawk

P.S. Note the nation from which the word “pacifism” comes.