RED FRIDAY
By
I received a fax last night frοm a vendor tһаt I found quite touching аחԁ wουƖԁ Ɩіkе tο share іt wіtһ tһе readers οf tһіѕ blog. I wουƖԁ encourage tһе administrater tο forward tһіѕ οח tο tһе Badger Blog Alliance іf һе deems appropriate. I һаνе 30 buttons coming fοr those wһο аrе interested іח ѕһοwіחɡ tһеіr support:
Red Friday
Last week I wаѕ іח Atlanta, Georgia attending a conference. WһіƖе I wаѕ іח tһе airport returning home, I heard several people behind mе bеɡіח tο clap аחԁ cheer. I immediately turned around аחԁ witnessed one οf tһе greatest acts οf patriotism I һаνе еνеr seen.
Moving through tһе terminal wаѕ a group οf soldiers іח tһеіr camos. Aѕ tһеу bеɡаח heading tο tһеіr gate everyone(well, аƖmοѕt everyone: wеחt abruptly tο tһеіr feet wіtһ tһеіr hands waving аחԁ cheering. Wһеח I saw tһе soldiers, probably thirty-forty οf tһеm, being applauded аחԁ cheered fοr іt hit mе. I’m חοt alone. I’m חοt tһе οחƖу red blooded American wһο still Ɩονеѕ tһіѕ country аחԁ supports ουr troops аחԁ tһеіr families.
Of course I immediately ѕtοрреԁ аחԁ bеɡаח clapping fοr those young unsung heroes, wһο аrе putting tһеіr lives οח tһе line еνеrу day fοr υѕ ѕο wе саח ɡο tο school, work аחԁ home without fеаr οf reprisal.
Jυѕt wһеח I tһουɡһt I сουƖԁ חοt bе more proud οf mу country οr οf ουr service men аחԁ women, a young girl חοt more tһаח six οf seven years οƖԁ ran up tο one οf tһе male soldiers. Hе kneeled down аחԁ ѕаіԁ “Hi”. Tһе ƖіttƖе girl tһеח аѕkеԁ һіm іf һе wουƖԁ give something tο һеr Daddy fοr һеr.
Tһе young soldier, wһο didn’t look аחу older tһаח maybe twenty-two himself, ѕаіԁ һе wουƖԁ try, аחԁ wһаt ԁіԁ ѕһе want tο give һеr daddy? Tһеח suddenly tһе ƖіttƖе girl grabbed tһе neck οf tһе soldier, gave һіm tһе bіɡɡеѕt hug ѕһе сουƖԁ muster, аחԁ tһеח kissed һіm οח tһе cheek.
Tһе mother οf tһе ƖіttƖе girl, wһο ѕаіԁ һеr daughter’s name wаѕ Courtney, tοƖԁ tһе young soldier tһаt һеr husband wаѕ a Marine wһο һаԁ bееח іח Iraq fοr eleven months now. Aѕ tһе mother wаѕ explaining һοw much Courtney missed һеr father, tһе young soldier bеɡаח tο tear up.
Wһеח tһіѕ temporarily single mom wаѕ done relating һеr situation, аƖƖ οf tһе soldiers huddled together fοr a brief second. Tһеח one οf tһе servicemen pulled out a military looking walkie-talkie. Tһеу ѕtаrtеԁ playing wіtһ tһе device аחԁ talking back аחԁ forth οח іt.
Aftеr аbουt ten οr fifteen seconds οf tһіѕ tһе young soldier walked back over tο Courtney, bеחt down аחԁ ѕаіԁ tһіѕ tο һеr. “I јυѕt spoke tο уουr Daddy, һе tοƖԁ mе tο tеƖƖ уου tһаt һе Ɩονеѕ уου more tһаח anything аחԁ һе іѕ coming home very soon.” Tһе mom аt tһіѕ point wаѕ сrуіחɡ аƖmοѕt uncontrollably аחԁ аѕ tһе young soldier stood tο һіѕ feet, һе saluted Courtney аחԁ һеr mom. I wаѕ standing חο more tһаח six feet away frοm tһіѕ entire event.
Aѕ tһе soldier bеɡаח tο head towards tһеіr gate, people resumed tһеіr applause. Aѕ I stood tһеrе applauding аחԁ looked around, tһеrе wеrе very few dry eyes, including mу οwח. Tһаt young soldier іח tһе last act οf selflessness, turned around аחԁ blew Courtney a kiss wіtһ a tear rolling down һіѕ cheek.
Wе need tο remember еνеrу day аƖƖ tһе soldiers аחԁ tһеіr families, аחԁ thank God fοr tһеm аחԁ tһеіr sacrifices. At tһе еחԁ οf tһе day, іt’s ɡοοԁ tο bе аח American.
RED FRIDAY’S! Very soon уου′ll see a ɡrеаt many people wearing red еνеrу Friday. Tһе reason? Americans wһο support ουr troops used tο bе called “ѕіƖеחt majority”. Wе חο longer ѕіƖеחt аחԁ аrе voicing ουr Ɩονе fοr God, country, аחԁ home іח record breaking numbers. Wе′re חοt organized, boisterous, аחԁ overbearing. Wе ɡеt חο liberal media coverage οח TV tο reflect ουr messages οr opinions.
Many Americans Ɩіkе уου, аחԁ mе, аחԁ аƖƖ οf ουr friends simple want tο recognize tһаt tһе vast majority οf America supports ουr troops wіtһ dignity аחԁ respect, ѕtаrtѕ tһіѕ Friday аחԁ continues each аחԁ еνеrу Friday until ουr troops һаνе аƖƖ come home. Sending a deafening message tһаt еνеrу red-blooded American wһο supports ουr men аחԁ women afar wіƖƖ wear something red.
Best Way Promotions wουƖԁ Ɩіkе tο send “I Support Out Troops!” buttons tο everyone tһаt wаחtѕ tһеm. Gο tο www.bestway.biz tο see tһе designs. Tһеу аrе FREE! TеƖƖ υѕ һοw many уου wіƖƖ need. Oυr fax number іѕ 507-896-4147.
Lеt’s tеƖƖ tһе world wе support ουr troops!!!
No related posts.
The Administrator does not have rights to post at the BBA, but I do. I have made it so.
I have NEVER understood the whole \”support our troops\” campaign. Here\’s an honest question.. who DOESN\’T support our troops? The debate has nothing to do with supporting the TROOPS and EVERYTHING to do with supporting the REASONING behind their mission.
I saw an interesting bumper sticker last week that said, \”I support our troops more than you do.\” lol something to think about.
There is a distinction between who supports the troops. If someone does not support the MISSION and LEADERRSHIP of the troops, they are not supporting the troops. Can’t have one without the other. I will dare say that the ones who fall into the camp of not supporting both are seditious.
I had to come out of the woodwork on this one.
Fact is, there is in America a great many who do not support the troops, or the mission, or anything whatsoever to do with war. They are called peacenik pascifist appeasers. Also, you have a large contingent of mystics running around – it wasn\’t all that long ago that such a group came to Hudson, Wisconsin protesting across the street from the Funeral of a fallen soldier with signs that said that he was FAG shouting all sorts of incredibly insensitive and disparaging remarks. It was incredible. I think they were mystics from Topeka, Kansas or some such venue -(http://www.technorati.com/ajax/post-details.php?b=7447081&p=316718449).
Then there are the morons who have signs in their window or bumper stickers stating \”War is not the answer\” and publicly they will say they âsupportâ the boy down the street who is fighting in 110 degree desert heat on their behalf. Well, by any objective and rational analysis war clearly is the answer in many cases. If you are morally opposed to war, and those who are fighting are, by definition, morally supporting war you could not take both positions at the same time (you cannot have your cake, and eat it too) – you cannot be anti-war and pro-troops at the same time; that is simply an unsustainable moral confliction. It is a cop-out and simple tells me you are living a lie. You are simply afraid to state your real belief in public for fear of reprisal or for fear of revealing your internal moral conflictions and lack of a moral code by which you live.
Believe it or not, there are many many people in this country who do not support the troops (the war) – and this is one of just a few places where I personally leave the Libertarians and Randians (Objectivists). Both groups have decried the war and continue to do so. I believe that the war on terror is not only morally right, but must be waged more aggressively and with far less sensitivity. Our future and our children\’s future depend right now (today) on the American military and our political leaders to completely destroy the threat of militant islamic fascism and Arab anti-semitismâŚand the sooner the better. That\’s reality, pipedreaming we can all get along together is irrational and threatens our very existence.
One thing you did mention does strikes me too as bizarre – the bumper sticker suggesting one supports the troops more⌠This is somewhat akin the the Lance Armstrong, yellow wrist band, campaign against cancer. I guess you too could care more about curing cancer, for a dollar. And that\’s the irony of such campaigns – it costs little or nothing to suggest symbolism over substance doesn\’t it…under the guise of âraising awareness.â Such campaigns are too often a cruel manipulation of real suffering for the personal benefit of certain special interest groups, and often take capital away from more productive uses. That which is not seen in the economic equation is lost in such emotional heart string pulling.
I refuse to wear care bracelets, put ribbons on my car, or any other \”look at me, I care more than you\” symbols – I don\’t need and certainly don\’t want other people to pity me. Rather, in the quite of my home, I learn about and contribute money and, when I can, time to causes that I personally deem worthy – such as The Freedom Alliance, The Salvation Army and , yes, The Luekemia and Lymphoma Society. Others can do as they wish, but I find the waste of money on I care more campaigns to be ridiculous.
Make no mistake about it, I could with as much irrational reasoning as anyone claim others should take pity on me but you\’ll never hear it from this corner of theborderline.
Oh, and by the way, if I had been standing in Hartsfield International and saw those soldiers I would have clapped and cheered and then did as I did in Hawaii when I met several seamen from the Nimitz – walked up and shook their hand and personally told them that I believed in them, what they were doing for me and my family, and THANK YOU..
Curt, I could do with a few(2) buttons.
I find an interesting flip-flop in rational on this blog. On this post you have to be pro-troops and pro-war or you are a traitor. In other words, you have to be in favor of the decisions made by our elected politicians who are spending $1.5 billion weekly on a war that is going well — however you spin it. Politicians tweaked the intelligence and got us into a war in Iraq. Bush Jr. did what Bush Sr. wouldn’t do — take our Saddam. Bush Sr. didn’t do it because we would have exactly what we have today. So we are supposed to blindly goose-step along with our President and his oil men or we are seditious traitors.
On the other hand, locally and statewide, we must be totally against anything that promotes or points positively to public/government education. The representatives elected to these positions can do no right — unless they are endorsed by the bloggers here. Every tax-collected penny spent on public/government education is misspent according to your agenda.
In my book, the military is for national defense and I believe this is the traditional conservative view of how our military is to be used. We were justified to go into Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Public education is key to our national offense strategy. We must prepare our children to do battle in the economic battles that face us. Things have started to get flip-flopped around. Now the military is an offensive weapon to fulfill neo-con fantasies and fill oil company coffers. Public education is tied to the whipping post of right-wing extremists who want to take every ill in our changing, expanding society out on its back.
I believe most people in the US support our troops and understand they are doing the job they signed up for. To date, there is no draft and everyone is there on their own “free will.” On the other, there is a growing majority in this country that realized the mistake that has been made and are realising the Gordian knot that our elected politicians have gotten us into. Remember, the generals didn’t want the Iraq War. Colin Powell is a former general and was against it. But the elected politicians — most of them draft avoiders from the Vietnam War era — have their neo-con fantasies that we are still number one. So their fantasies have turned into a blood-soaked wet nightmare and the US military is out trolling the poor neighborhoods for more recruits to die in Humvees in Baghdad. Maybe that’s the reason the neo-con want the public education system to fail — especially on the poor side of town. I don’t have the stats, but my gut tells me that you are more likely to die in Iraq the lower you education level, the poorer your school district and the lower your parents income level. That’s how free market capitalism works.
Gavel â you certainly have a, …well, lets just say, an interesting view with your attempt to tie public education in with the Iraq war. Your comment stating how your gut feeling says its the poorer kids that are dying in Humvees in Iraq is because of a lower education says a lot for the public education you seem to want to promote. You can’t seem to see how much the public education system is failing not only the children, but our country as well. Or do you too believe the only reason public education isn`t making the grade is because of lack of funding?
As for the war and your perception of who to blame for it, that has nothing to do with the people fighting it which goes up to and includes the President. However, you do seem to have a selective way of remembering history there gavel, because Powell was the spokesman telling the UN what would happen if Iraq didn’t comply with the UN orders to account for their weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is the one who made the bad choice. Bush Sr. is the one kicking himself for being talked out of taking care of the problem the first time around.
You see gavel, it’s obvious you’ve never served in the military, swore to uphold the Constitution or have swore to give your life in service to our country defending our freedom both here and abroad. The thing your missing is the fact we have a President who’s willing to make the hard decisions, to look at the situation for what it is, make a stand and clean house to fix the problem. If people sitting on school boards had the guts to do the same we wouldn’t have poorly educated people dying in Humvees. So before you go blaming all the worldly problems on the President, how about putting a stronger effort into helping fix the local education mess first? If you’re going to hold some elected person accountable, try focusing on the local school board first. After all, using your reasoning, if the public school system did a better job, the kids would be smart enough to know not to join the military.
But then, the thing you’re still missing is this. Even with this so called poor education, these young people are still smart enough to know what to live for, …..and what to die for.
Maybe we need to send a couple school boards to Iraq for some training.
E-S, you are correct when you say “itâs obvious youâve never served in the military, swore to uphold the Constitution or have swore to give your life in service to our country defending our freedom both here and abroad.” Neither has the President, Vice President, Paul Wolfowitz and a host of other neo-cons (emphasis on “cons”) who suckered us into Iraq. I have the utmost respect for our military and I believe they are the last ones who wanted to go to war ill prepared.
A big supporter of President Bush locally and vocally to me the same thing about Bush and his “convictions.” I asked him why he was such a big supporter of Bush and he said because he is a “man of convictions.” I agreed that Bush is a man of convictions and many of those convictions are dead wrong. He agreed but said he still supported Bush because he was a “man of convictions.” That works for him, but it doesn’t work for me.
As far as blaming things on Bush, isn’t he the man sitting where the buck stops? Isn’t he the “decider?” He is ill equipped to do the job he was elected to do and he is doing a royal job of screwing things up. But I have to admit, that he does have convictions.
Why would you send school boards to Iraq? You want to force people to go suffer for the egos, mistakes and greed of politicians? I thought you were all about personal liberty on this blog? I suppose that holds true only well it’s YOUR personal liberty. Oil boys Bush and Cheney say they are pushing for democracy in the Middle East. A major cornerstone in the foundation of our democracy is the ability to disagree with the actions and in-actions of our government. So if one disagrees with the current administration’s war “plane,” they are traitors and should be sent to Iraq. That’s so Ann Clouter. Looks like another flip-flop example.
Gavel – you can`t be serious. Now you`re saying the President, Vice-President and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have never taken or abided by their oath of office. Bush was in the military and has signed on the dotted line at least once during his enlistment – everyone has to. At least Bush served, which is a far cry from what your hero Clinton did by running to England to hide.
Good grief man!! For your own sake, don`t stand too close to the edge of the deep end of the pool. Your logic has escaped you.
I see no problem with questioning this President`s (or any other President for that matter) actions regarding domistic issues. But in a time of war, there can be no questions or insubordination once the Commander in Chief has made a decision. You do as ordered, period. I have full faith in this Commander in Chief and the staff giving him direction. To do anything less at this point in time is acting in a manner that can only be viewed as against supporting the troops.
What you have to come to grips with is either the battle is worth fighting or it isn`t. There is no in between and there is no changing your mind once started just because the road got a little tough. Then again, if you`ve never served – I guess I can`t expect you to fully understand the reason why things have to be the way they are. You`re about 40 years too late there gavel to be promoting this kind of mindset. On the other hand, maybe you`re one of the products of the `flower-child-peace-not-war-public-education` movement.
Now THAT would explain everything!!
ES:
I’m not sure why you would say Clinton is my hero. I never voted for him. I vote Libertarian. I would agree that Clinton did slip over to England on a draft deferment. Cheney probably wasn’t smart enough to get a Rhodes Scholarship so he only slipped over to Madison.
You say: “There is no in between and there is no changing your mind once started just because the road got a little tough. Then again, if you`ve never served – I guess I can`t expect you to fully understand the reason why things have to be the way they are.”
I say you are right. The US has a moral obligation to deal with the mess created by the Bush Administration. I am with you there. We broke it and so we own it.
You say: “To do anything less at this point in time is acting in a manner that can only be viewed as against supporting the troops.” Obviously, this is your opinion. I would hope there is room for differences of opinion on this blog. I would hope I am not the first one you’ve encountered who has raised a few points that contradict the Bush Administration spin on Iraq. How long around did W land on the aircraft carrier and pronounced “Mission Accomplished?” Do you still believe that?
Certainly I don’t have to agree with the Bush Administration’s spin on why we went to war? Hey man, they spun us in, we weren’t prepared, they kicked out any general or military expert who didn’t agree with them and went to war. There are plenty of generals who’ve recently retired that are expressing their opinions about what got us into war.
And then you end with the “`flower-child-peace-not-war-public-education` movement.” Actually, I don’t fit this profile. However, I would hate to live in a nation that didn’t have people belonging to that movement and vocally fighting for that perspective. Diversity of opinion and ideas is what makes this country strong and weak. Do we fight because our castle is being threatened or because we are belligerent bullies? Do we look like an ass-kicking, world-beating military monster over in Iraq? I suppose, if Iraq didn’t have oil, we could just nuke ‘em. But the again, if they didn’t have oil, we wouldn’t be there now would we.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on the `We broke it so we own it` comment. Iraq was a continually growing problem that sooner or later had to be dealt with. Saddam had to be removed for the safety of a number of countries, including ours. Sure, we took the lead in addressing the issue, but it was the UN`s policy that was being enforced, not the US`s. Whether you agree with it or not, 9/11 was a wake-up call that would have left any administration with little choice other than to act pro-actively and aggressively. So when it came to Iraq, we didn’t break it, it was already `broke` and getting worse.
Now, let`s come back to the `Support Our Troops` issue for just one more comment. You admitted as much that those fighting over in Iraq are there by their own choosing. The problem you have now is you feel they shouldn`t have to be there. So my next question would then have to be, where exactly do you think they should be? Do you feel you, as a citizen, should have some input in the Commander in Chief`s decisions on where troops are deployed? Sorry there gavel, but that option is no where to be found in the rule book. As a matter of fact, the only people you can complain to are your Representatives and Senators, who so happen, by a majority have voted to stick with the present plan of the Bush Administration to stay the present course. Hmmmm…. Kind of hard to put all the blame on President Bush then, isn`t it?
So, let`s see, 1) The troops are there by their own choosing and believe the fight is worth fighting. 2) The chain of command is doing its best to bring the fighting to an end and restore order to that region. 3) The President and his Administration are using every tool available as humanly possibe to settle the situation. 4) And the Senate and House have voted to stay the course. And you still feel that your objection to the steps being taken shouldn`t be viewed as not supporting the troops, yet you believe it`s okay to side with those that oppose the job these troops are doing.
Gavel, this isn`t the 60`s and 70`s anymore. No one is in uniform who didn’t willing choose to be. And with it, they chose to carry the responsibility that comes with wearing that uniform, however, they don`t get to choose the war they`re going to fight.
I know what it was like to go through the draft and was forunate enough that my number, 305, was high enough to not be force into the military at that time, though I did join a year later. Back then, I had friends forced to fight a war that wasn`t declared, wasn`t completely supported by Congress and who had to endure the ridicule and harassment for doing a duty they were forced to serve when they returned home. That isn`t the case today. The people today are there because they believe not only in the mission, but also why that mission is needed. If you want to be foolish enough to question it, I dare you to join the service and then go ahead and challenge the decisions made while a mission is being carried out. You will soon find that you`ll either cause someone to be wounded or killed or you yourself will be wounded or killed. There is no democracy in a war zone and what you fail to understand is a President can`t declare war by his own hand. Congress has given this President the go-ahead, and we now have 10`s of thousands of very brave people fighting the fight on some distant land for others to have freedom and liberty rather than having to fight this fight in our own yards so we can keep the freedom so many here seem to take for granted.
If you believe the war in Iraq is all about oil, then why aren`t you demonstating in the streets protesting Congress to open up more oil fields here at home? Why aren`t you demanding Congress to enact higher mandatory mileage standards out of the newer vehicles? Why aren`t you asking Congress to require gas rationing? Why haven’t you demanded more nuclear energy plants be built? Or are you going to suggest the federal government just fix the price of gas in the U.S. to say $1.50 a gallon? If that is the case, I guess what you are saying is you believe the government would be wiser to spend billions of dollars a day on fixing the price of gas than fighting a war to correct a growing threat being made to the entire civilized world.
And you blog here in protest because you think President Bush doesn`t have a plan!! Give me a break!!! Pleezzzzeee!!! All we`ve heard from you so far is a bunch of belly-aching that Bush isn`t doing the right thing. Let`s put your butt in the chair and hear your plan!!
You have the floor sir. I`ll sit on the edge of my chair awaiting your response.
What threat did Saddam pose for the US? A threat to our oil interests! Whether you want to admit it or not, the reason we are at war in Iraqi is OIL. It’s not because we are the Peter Pan of democracy flitting around the globe and sprinkling democracy dust on all the evil dictators.
Remember former Secretary of State Colin Powell earned his nickname, “the reluctant warrior” because he rarely advocated military intervention as the first solution to an international dispute, and instead usually prescribed diplomacy and containment. This was true in his early days with the Bush Administration. If we would have follow the path of containment, how many more people would be alive today? How many billions would we not have spent on Iraq?
President Bush’s handlers (almost exclusively non-military people who avoided the Vietnam draft) believe the U.S. as the only super power must use its great strength to get whatever it wants. Vietnam and Iraq have demonstrated that having big muscles doesn’t always make you a winner. The Bush Administration is responsible for the snafu in Iraq, and now they want to salvage the situation by invading more countries.
You keep get confused on my stand on the military. I have no problem with the military. They are doing the job they SIGNED UP for. They are doing the job and, from what I’ve read about the Wisconsin soldier killed recently, the training seems to be less than adequate.
Does it look to you that Bush has a plan. Bush might have convictions, as you say, but he ain’t got no plan. They fair tales his handlers to him about the Iraqis dancing in the streets and putting flowers in their guns didn’t come true when Saddam’s government toppled. I didn’t happen when they dug Saddam out of the spider hole.
I don’t think you’ve heard me belly ache at all of this post. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Remember that when Bush told his Mother he was going to run for President she almost fell off her chair laughing. He put his butt in the Oval Office chair and he is where the buck stops. You don’t seem to handle criticism of our President and his decisions very well. First you want to send a couple of school boards to Iraq and now you want to make me the President.
In case anyone is interested, the army has raised the age limit for enlistment to 42.