Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts

Sunday, September 8, 2019

TERF Wars Continue 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈


TERFs believe this--and that's why those ladies are H8ers (to the Transgender community)

Imagine that. Feminists who do not consider men transitioning to women to be actual women. With the political correctness required of anything transgender, that is just hate speech. 

Jazz Shaw claims to just found out about this. Really? Where have you been? Stacy McCain has been on stories like this about the Cult of Transgenderism for years. Instapundit has also noted the political correctness of the pronoun wars. Hey if you criticize transgenderism on practically any level, then you just apparently have it coming (even if you are battered women). 


Townhall: Climate Change Is A Hoax (sort of like changing your gender)




Thursday, May 24, 2018

Love or War?



Rule 5 and FMJRA

Woodsterman: What do you do?

Goodstuff Cyber Blog: 217th Ed.

Hogewash: Epi. 13 The Other Podcast

Grouchy Old Cripple: Saturday Boobage

Wired Right: A Beautiful End to the Day

Irons in the Fire: That time of week again

Lem's Place: Ladies of the West and Scandal

Freefolk: The Only Royal Wedding I Care For

Dustbury: One of the best and You had one job

Animal Magnetism: Saturday Gingermageddon

Political Clown Parade: Flowing Curves Of Beauty

By Other Means: CosplayTap Rack & BangSeeing Red


Instapundit: The Royal Wedding emblematic of the decline of the Church of England

Feral Irishman: Saturdeyes Tull Tigured TuesdayThat's not quite CPR, and Mornin'

Diogenes Middle Finger News: It's been a banner week for pathetically dishonest media and A Good Monday Morning

The Daley Gator: Sunday BabesMonday BabesTuesday BabesWednesday BabesThursday BabesFriday BabeSaturday Babes

90 Miles From Tyranny: Hot pickMystery Box: Episode #257Mystery Box: Episode #258Hot pickHot pick Mystery Box: Episode #261


TOM: Transgender SorosFeminism's African Abortion AgendaSecond ThoughtsWhy don't 'Incels' go gay?FBI Spy and Mueller Cover-upInternal Civil War (not raging), The Climate Industrial ComplexA Herd of SavagesThe Parental TrumpLate Night In The Mailbox 05.18.18Has #MeToo Finally Gone Too Far?Synthetic Community and Rapid Onset Gender DysphoriaSome advice for you 'Incel' losers

A collection of sites known for appreciation of Rule 5 and the martial arts of love:

H2
TOTUS
Egotastic
Dust bury
HeroPress
Hogewash
Theo Spark
Daily Gator
Daily Caller
Wired Right
Pirate's Cove
Woodsterman
Proof Positive
RULE 5 SITES
The Right Way
MissK's World...
By Other Means
American Power
Irons In The Fire
Guns and Bikinis
SayanythingBlog
Raconteur Report
Doubletroubletwo
Angrymikes hood
The Last Tradition
Adrienne's Corner
The Feral Irishman
Camp of the Saints
Animal Magnatism
Maggie's Notebook
The Classic Liberal
The Rio Norte Line
Randy's Roundtable
A Nod To The Gods
Grouchy Old Cripple
Political Clown Parade
24 Femmes Per Second
The Vulgar Curmudgeon
A View From The Beach
Diogenes' Middle Finger
Your Crazy Uncle Bubba
Old Retired Petty Officer
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
Knuckledraggin My Life Away
In a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

Monday, August 7, 2017

Which is better for the innocent, a quick victory or a protracted war?


The estimated population of King's Landing is 500,000. The total population of Westeros is estimated at 40 million.  The White Walkers and their dead wight hords are coming to attack the living, then presumably move on  to attack the millions living in Essos and Southoyos until that world is one big snowball.   

I know it is a fictional universe, but GoT is sending a message (the timing of the dragon attack on the Hiroshima anniversary was not a coincidence). Truth is if the attack was on Kings Landing and Cersei was taken out of power, the population could then focus its attention on the real threat.  




EBL: Mongols vs. Dothraki? and Game of Thrones as a 1995 TV Show

Wombat: Bring The HEAT: Thoughts On The Atomic Bombing Of Hiroshima, also, Guadalcanal At 75

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Hitler finds out about Brian Williams…



Instapundit: “It’s like being unsure if you had a threesome with Sofia Vergara and Kate Upton! Some shit you just do NOT ‘misremember.’”

P.J. O'Rourke shows some sympathy for Williams: All war correspondent stories grow bigger with time and drinks… 

True, but it helps to actually have some old school war story chops in the first place (reporters and writers like James Jones, Norman Mailer, Herman Wouk, Irwin Shaw, Walter Cronkite and the late Bob Simon were actually repeatedly in harms way). And while I was no fan of Walter Cronkite, I do not recall him ever self promoting himself with war stories like Brian Williams did. 


And I will take those old guys at Elaine's in the seventies over the current crop of TV celebrity reporters anytime. EBL: Brian Williams and NBC's Game of Thrones
Instapundit: Social Media Politics
NBC put the kibosh on Brian Williams references/jokes at SNL 40, but Seinfeld and Carrey apparently did not get the memo…

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Memorial Day: The Civil War

The bloodiest battles of the Civil War…

Gettysburg
Chickamauga
Spotsylvania Court House
Wilderness
Chancellorsville
Shiloh
Stone River

Antietam
Second Battle of Bull Run
Fort Donelson

Sunday, April 27, 2014

War: What's it good for?




Truth is both those positions are simplistic and don't give a clear answer, anyone seriously considering this position has to recognize that sometimes war is justified and sometimes it is not.  A lot of it depends on whether you are on the winning side or not (although there are plenty of examples in history of a long costly wars resulting in everyone losing).  In a macro sense (over the whole of human history) the article linked above is correct, but how can anyone justify that World War One (certainly for Great Britain, France and Germany) was "worth it"--especially since it led to World War Two?

But it is unknown what might have happened if WWI was not fought.  None of us would likely be here had it not been fought, because history and circumstances would have turned out completely different. Better or worse?  It could be either.  

Are we better off for fighting the Iraq War after 9/11?  What about what we did in Afghanistan?  I do not mean in a narrow partisan sense, but in a broader sense.  

We need to do a better job teaching history.

Update:
We need some wise leaders too:

Monday, September 17, 2012

What will Israel do in response to Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, will it use them?  "Benjamin Netanyahu told NBC’s Meet the Press that Iran is guided by fanaticism with no rationality, and that those who believe Iranian nuclear weapons could lead to regional stability are stupid."  Netanyahu is making clear signals that Israel is not going to allow Iran to obtain these weapons without a military response.  Iran also knows that Europe and Russia are not going to put any significant pressure on Iran to back off.  Netanyahu has been trying to get President Obama to recognize the danger, but American and Israeli officals are at loggerheads over how to deal with Iran.  Obama does not see the profound risk that Netanyahu does, which is why he publicly shunned Netanyahu--he does not want to be connected with the action Israel is about to undertake:
The severity and the urgency a nuclear-armed Iran represents to the world and to Israel do not register with Obama. Rather than take the bull by the horns, admit that sanctions and negotiations have failed, and bite the bullet for a massive U.S. military strike against Iran, Obama characteristically is taking the path of least resistance and just going with the counter-productive flow.
Nevertheless, the Iranians have said they will attack American bases in the middle east and will block oil out of the Persian Gulf.  British and American ships are preparing for that very event.
The Straight of Hormuz, shown above is 21 miles across at its narrowest point.
Israel does not want to look like it is interfering in American politics.  But Israel may act anyway.  The implication of such an attack are huge since oil prices will undoubtably skyrocket in response (at least in the short term) and the economic impacts could be enormous.  

This is what is driving Netanyahu:  What if the unthinkable happens and Iran gets nuclear weapons and actually uses them?  That is not a risk Israel can face.  

Even if Iran gets them and then uses them as leverage only, every major Arab country in the middle east (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Arab Emeriates, etc.)  will be trying to get nuclear weapons also (since none of them trust Iran).  Turkey will probably want nuclear weapons also.  A world with Iran (with its current leadership) having nuclear weapons and driving its neighbors into a nuclear arms race is far more destabilized than India and Pakistan obtaining nuclear weapons (for example).  


Beyond being difficult, such an attack will not be final:
There is nothing new about the fact that even the most optimistic planners and commanders in the IDF do not believe that Israel can completely wipe out Iran's nuclear capabilities. Senior air-force officers have long been saying that "we will have to go back to Iran a second time, we have no illusion that we can delay their plans by more than two or three years."
Yesterday was the Jewish New Year.  This may turn out to be an interesting year.  

Thursday, July 19, 2012

So what is happening in Syria?

You know that scene in the Godfather 2 where Michael Corleone is driving through the streets of Havana and sees a rebel kill a captain of the police?  Remember what happened shortly thereafter?  Syria is like Cuba was then.   And the collapse will probably happen sooner rather than later.  There are reports that there was an assignation attempt on Assad and he has fled Damascus.

All I can think is:  Let's hope this is true.

Update:  Change is happening...

Monday, January 16, 2012

Thank you to the United States Marine Corps: The Battle of Saipan vs. the Battle of Helmand Province, Afghanistan

U.S. Marines advance on occupying Japanese forces in Tanapag, Saipan in June 1944
U.S. Marines with 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment in Sangin, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in November 2010.
While wars are increasingly fought with drones and other technology, Marines are still fighting these wars as they always have.  With Marines on the ground.  The same was true in Iraq.  


The actor Lee Marvin was a Private First Class in the Marine Corps and was wounded at the Battle of Saipan.  At the link is Lee Marvin narrating Our Time In Hell video, documenting the War in the Pacific. 

With the recent hypocritical over the top fake outrage over a few Marines urinating on dead Taliban, I thought about Lee Marvin's scene in Hell in the Pacific where he urinates on a sleeping Japanese officer played by Torshiro Mifune.  Granted it was just a fictional movie, but I do not recall Japanese outrage over how they were treated.  Marvin, in the true life "Our Time In Hell" documentary link above, notes how Japanese prisoners were in U.S. custody.  


h/t:  Dave in Texas at Ace of Spades on Saipan article.  


Update:  Victor Davis Hanson at NRO.  

Friday, January 13, 2012

Congressman Allen West says it best...

Congressman Allen West's open letter to the Weekly Standard
“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. 
“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq? 
“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter. 
“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”
Congressman West is absolutely correct.  I thank Congressman West and these Marines for their service.  The 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines (of which these Marines were part of) were fighting the Taliban in Helmand province.  As noted by NPR doing a story of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines fighting in the same region, there were high casualties in the fighting there.  Be thankful you did not have to face it.  


The video in question was taken months ago.  These are young men who were under incredible stress and in danger.  What they did was wrong, and no one is justifying that, but it is also completely forgivable.  They deserve our understanding and respect, not attacks.  Yes war is a brutal, but to suggest this is some sort of war crime, given what limited information of the circumstances is know at this time, is disgraceful.  At least allow the military to do its investigation.  


As noted by Dana Loesch who was attacked for her comments:
The disproportionate anger on the part of progressives is fueled by their dislike of our military. That what this proves. 
The left is attacking me so they can give the Obama administration a pass–unlike what they did with Bush and Abu Ghraib. Like it or not, I’ll stand up for our troops no matter which president is in charge.
Of course, some of these critics are too far left now for even their former friends...  


Previous Post:  How Iraq was won.
Update:   Revealing conversation among liberals leftists... (when Bill Maher and Rob Reiner come off as reasonable compared to Debbie Wasserman Shultz, you have to wonder...)
               Congressman West about Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz
Update II:  We better be careful or the Taliban may not like us anymore...

Thursday, December 29, 2011

How Iraq Was Won...

The corps commander in Iraq during the surge, now the Army chief of staff, General Raymond Odierno, reportedly said that nothing he was doing before the Army published its new counterinsurgency doctrine changed once it was published. A new doctrine did not break the back of the counterinsurgency in Iraq. That was done by the addition of 50,000 more soldiers and Marines to the fight. Note:These were not aid workers or even forces imbued with a new doctrine (most of them had never read it). Rather, they were 50,000 mostly combat troops, prepared to take the fight to the enemy. And it was a hard and vicious fight — one that often required the full combined-arms panoply (armor, artillery, close air support) to win. Somehow, much of the true narrative of this fight is being lost in favor of one that emphasizes getting along with the locals, building schools, and helping farmers. All of these activities were, of course, important, but they pale in comparison to the benefits of increased security, which was only bought by hard fighting. One brigade commander captured it perfectly when he said, “I know all about counterinsurgency doctrine. It means shake hands in the light and kill at night.”
As they say, read the whole thing.

The underlying message is wars are hard.  And brutal.  And when we get in them there better be a good reason and we better be prepared for the worst.

H/T to David French at the Corner.

Update:  Maetenloch at AoSHQ recognizes the merits of the linked article too.