The D-Day Invasion, Today

Here is an absolute gem from Neal Boortz.com:

HOW THE D-DAY INVASIONWOULD BE REPORTED BY TODAY'S PRESS NORMANDY, FRANCE

(June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

Women and Combat

This is without a doubt a very "pc" issue, being on the feminist agenda and all. I thought in light of recent events it would be good to say something here about women in combat.

Should this ever be allowed? Should women be put into combat roles? The answer is, and always will be, no. Women should not be on the front lines, and the simple fact is that women cannot do everything a man does. That's right, a woman's body is in fact different than a man's. Consider what the Center for Military Readiness has to say on such differences in body composition and what they mean:

In close combat environments, which fit the definition above, physical capabilities are as important as ever. Equipment and survival gear carried by today’s combat soldiers, including electronic weapons and ammunition, satellite communication devices, batteries, and water weigh 50-100 pounds—a burden that is just as heavy as loads carried by Roman legionnaires in the days of Julius Caesar.

Modern body armor alone weighs 25 pounds. This weight is proportionately more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and other injuries at rates double those of men.

As alluded to above, women are more likely to get injured.

Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically non-available at any time is twice that of men. If a woman can't do her job, someone else must do it for her. Only 10 percent of women can meet all of the minimum physical requirements for 75 percent of the jobs in the Army. Women may be able to drive five-ton trucks, but need a man's help if they must change the tires. Women can be assigned to a field artillery unit, but often can't handle the ammunition.

Also, it is bad for unit cohesion. I would think this self-evident to anyone who has done much reading on military matters. Again from the above article:

Those who deny the impact of eros on unit cohesion are kidding themselves. As the eminent military sociologist Charles Moskos has commented, "When you put men and women together in a confined environment and shake vigorously, don't be surprised if sex occurs." Mixing the sexes and thereby introducing eros creates the most dangerous form of friction in the military, corroding the very source of military excellence itself: the male bonding necessary to unit cohesion.

The only ones who should be advocating women in cobat roles should be the feminists, and them only because they have a radical and warped sense of reality, which is simply the turning of women into men apparently.

Another one Bites the Dust

Good news in Iraq, looks like another al-Qaeda agent has gone down, this one al-Zarqawi's right hand man.

And for good news of another sort, check out Chrenkoff.

Quagmire?

More and more it seems to me that the democrats are simply wishful that Iraq is a "quagmire." For some reason, they go on the template of Vietnam, as if that is what we need to strive for. All this talk of quagmire, which Rumsfeld has had to defend himself from, holds almost no reality on the ground. For instance, take this article today. Iraqi security forces are improving, to the point they are "competant" to "inspiring". The picture painted in the Media daily is one that plays right into the hands of the terrorists. They achieve very little, a suicide bombing here and there, but it is amplified on the world screen, blowing it irretrievably out of proportion. And the same general who came off seeming rather negative in the Rumsfeld article, "Abizaid said insurgents' strength had not diminished and that more foreign fighters were coming into Iraq than six months ago," in fact feels that the war goals are obtainable--with support. That's right, we need to support the efforts there, not attempt to discredit our military with slanderous remarks of "gulag" and over-blow every failing while totally ignoring anything of good.

The Iraqis have certainly shown that they are willing to fight for their country, so why don't we help them out rather than being so self-critical and defeatistic?

If Only They Were All More Like Arnold

No wonder Arnold is slipping in the press and their "public opinion" polls. An article on OpinionJournal has highlighted it very nicely. He's raising teacher standards, cutting spending, and doing things that is going to have every democrat in a frenzy. Arnold is obviously not a member of the linguini-spined moderate republican sector, who only care about how they are percieved by the media. What we need is more Arnold's and fewer "girly-men" republicans. The girly men are, of course, led by McCain, that "Maverick" republican.

Some exerpts:

And then there is California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose 19-month career is easily the most visionary and strongest gubernatorial leadership performance in modern American history.

Within hours of taking office he undid Mr. Davis's tripling of the car tax, cutting taxes by about $2 billion. He slashed spending by about $6 billion in a first step to eliminate the state's $22 billion deficit. The current budget is balanced at a level $11 billion less than the projected baseline when he took office. In March 2004 the voters passed Proposition 58, the first Schwarzenegger ballot initiative, requiring a balanced budget, establishing a Rainy Day Fund to accumulate cash to meet future unexpected economic declines, and banning the use of bonds to finance future deficits.

But that was just the beginning. A week ago the governor called a special election for Nov. 8 to vote on three policy changes that the Democrat-controlled legislature has refused to consider: stronger state spending restraints, higher standards for public school teachers, and retired judges rather than legislators drawing legislative district boundaries.

What can we do but stand up and applaud?

Oil Price Fixing

While I doubt that anything will come of it, the Senate is going to allow the US to sue OPEK for price fixing. Anyone who knows much about economics also knows that lost amid all of the tumult of high gas prices, is the fact that these prices are essentially fixed by those on top. The countries may get the oil out of the ground for $5 a barrel, but their monopolistic setup allows them to sell it for $55 a barrel, whether that is what it is worth or not. The problem is, they decide the price, not the market. Price manipulation is bad for economies and whenever it is done it is with disasterous results: See the Great Depression. This bit sums it up nicely:

"If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their action would be nothing more than an illegal price-fixing scheme," Kohl said.

Cancer-Fighting Virus?

According to a recent finding, a harmless virus may help fight cancer, and quite effectively at that. From the article:

"Our results suggest that adeno-associated virus type 2, which infects the majority of the population but has no known ill effects, kills multiple types of cancer cells yet has no effect on healthy cells," said Craig Meyers, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Penn State College of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

"We believe that AAV-2 recognizes that the cancer cells are abnormal and destroys them. This suggests that AAV-2 has great potential to be developed as an anti-cancer agent," Meyers said in a statement.

Interesting Headline....

Currently running as the top story on Foxnews.com is this story: Al-Zawahiri Tape Slams U.S., on the Main page is is advertised as "Terrorist's Tape Criticizes U.S."

Now, to me anyway, this story seems absolutely ridiculous. Of course terrorists are going to be criticizing the U.S.A. Why is this headline news? The terrorists want us dead....or to convert to Islam. These people are not ever going to not criticize the U.S. Period. I just have to wonder why exactly this story deserves a front page headline.

That Iraq War

Bush was right and at least justified in going to war. One thing needs to become clear. WMD stockpiles were not the major justification of the war. The Resolution for the use of Force in Iraq was passed by majorities of both parties. It contained 22 clauses, with only 2 mentioning stockpiles of WMDs, and the bulk, at 12, concerning UN resolutions and Iraq’s violation of them. The emphasis was rather on Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs and its refusal to destroy its previous ones. Of course this has certainly been justified. Sarin bombs have been found, indicating that Iraq had not destroyed all of its weapons as it claimed. It seems most people have forgotten about this, which is distressing. David Kay has said this: "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." And this: That Iraqi scientists were "actively working to produce a biological weapon using the poison ricin." This is exactly what the war was about. The threat of WMDs, which was a threat clearly exhibited by Iraq. After all, if you are going to invade a country because of massive WMD stockpiles, you are going to do it secretly, striking all at once, with as little warning as possible. "If one country is afraid that another country has WMD and might use them, you don’t start threatening them with war months before you are ready and wage a very public countdown to a proposed attack date. If you really believe a country has WMD, you say nothing and make no threats until you are ready to strike." (268-269, America's Secret War)

Even if you're still hung up on the whole "no WMD" bull, the case isn't exactly closed yet. Consider these statements by Duelfer: "On November 17, 2004, Duelfer told the House International Relations Committee that a lot was moved by Saddam's people from Iraq into Syria and no one knows whether or not the WMD were among the shipments to Syria: 'I can't confirm anything one way or the other. What we do know is that a lot of stuff was crossing the border before the war. Trucks, but you don't know what was in them. So that's -- you know, I would like to be able to state definitively one way or the other an answer to that. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to.'" [...] "...But what I can tell you that I believe we know is a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." Hmm.....facinating.

Hans Blix has said that he was against the war under all circumstances. Nevertheless, in his book he states that resolution 1441 was diplomatic language for an ultimatum for war. The deadline for compliance came, and Saddam submitted a 12,000 page report that Blix calls smoke and mirrors, that the information submitted was from deceptive reports that Saddam had submitted in the past, that thousands of weapons were unaccounted for, and that it did not in fact fulfill the requirements the Security Council had laid down. Whatever one may think of the war, it was not illegal or unjustified.

Iraq was most definitely a danger to the United States. Just ask Vladamir Putin. Iraq was certainly a threat for numerous reasons, and even Russia, opposed to the war, knew it.

There were other equally important reasons for invading Iraq. Iraq is the key to the entire region strategically. In the war on terrorism and Al Qaida, Iraq was a threat to the US, but so was Saudi Arabia. The United States did not want to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family, as this would not solve any problems. From the beginning, the Saudis had not been helpful to the US. They had neither endorsed Al Qaida, but neither had they done anything to stop it. They had played a game, bending whichever way the wind blew, and expecting the US to agree to most, if not all of its demands. They did not expect the US would do anything about it, and did not think them capable of it. The invasion of Iraq completely dispelled these myths, and put nonporous pressure on Saudi Arabia:: "the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes..." "The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: ‘Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida . . . There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking . . . At this point the US is winning . . . The war goes on.’" See also.

It also without doubt took the war to the enemy. The terrorists have been reeling, and what seemed likely just a few years ago, that there would be major attacks in US cities by terrorists, has not happened. Not only has it not happened, but the focus of al Qaida has been shifted. Osama is making videos, not bombs, and terrorists are expending nearly all of their energy fighting in Iraq, where it is possible to fight them. There is almost no real way to combat terrorism within the United States. It was therefore absolutely essential to take the fight to the enemy. Which in itself is sound military doctrine.

Now, no doubt some hate George Bush and therefore feel the Iraq war is wrong, but there has been ample justification for it. The whole stockpiles issue is old and tired, gaining credibility through tautology. The war in Iraq is an integral part in the war on terror.