Monthly Archives: July 2008

The Real Story Of Wanat Afghanistan

Thank you to Maryann Phillips Soldiers’ Angel at Landstuhl for providing these accounts and being there for the wounded. You are truly a wonderful angel. Let’s get the truth of this out there folks..repost!


“I just hope these guys’ wives and their children understand how courageous their husbands and dads were. They fought like warriors.”

– SGT Jacob Walker


“It was some of the bravest stuff I’ve ever seen in my life, and I will never see it again because those guys… well, normal humans wouldn’t do that. You’re not supposed to do that — getting up and firing back when everything around you is popping and whizzing and trees, branches coming down and sandbags exploding and RPGs coming in over your head… It was a fistfight then, and those guys held ‘ em off.”

– SPC Tyler Stafford


“When you ask for volunteers to run across an open field to a reinforced OP that almost everybody is injured at, and everybody volunteers, it feels good. There were a lot of guys that made me proud, putting themselves and their lives on the line so their buddies could have a chance.”

– SSG Jesse Queck


Im Memoriam:

1LT Jonathan Brostrom
SGT Israel Garcia
SPC Matthew Phillips
SPC Pruitt Rainey
SPC Jonathan Ayers
SPC Jason Bogar
SPC Sergio Abad
SPC Jason Hovater

SPC Gunnar Zwilling


All Sky Soldiers of Chosen Company, 2/503 Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

*  *  *

The real story is NOT that this was a “base” – it was a small outpost of 45 men surrounded by concertina wire, with a few vehicles and fortified fighting positions.

The real story is NOT that the outpost was “overrun” – the truth is that 45 Heroes successfully fought off an organized attack by hundreds of heavily-armed Taliban and al Queda.

The real story is NOT that the outpost was “abandoned” after the attack – it was a temporary patrol base.

I spent days talking to the wounded paratroopers who were at Wanat during their stay at Landstuhl hospital and can vouch for everything in the following articles:

Interviews with several wounded Soldiers of Chosen Company while at Landstuhl hospital describing the attack.

Multimedia version of above interviews.

Interview with an additional wounded Soldier of Chosen providing further information on the fight.

Interview with the commander of the 173rd ABCT.

An Alamo with a Different Ending:
Overwhelmingly Outnumbered Coalition Forces Repel a Complex Attack in NE
Afghanistan

This writeup can be found at my blog here:

http://soldiersangelsgermany.blogspot.com/2008/07/heroes-of-wanat.html


Mary Ann Phillips
Vice President, Warrior Medical Support Europe

www.soldiersangels.org

Anniversary of Life Saver Bombs

by Jim Cardoza at Liberty Pen

July 23, 2008

August 6th will mark sixty-three years since a blinding light filled the sky above Hiroshima.  On that fateful day, the detonation of a single bomb, created a fireball wider than three football fields.  The blast heated ground temperatures to 5,000 degrees centigrade, and produced a mushroom cloud that rose nearly 20,000 feet.  In a split second, 70,000 unsuspecting people were burned, crushed or vaporized.

In the aftermath, tens of thousands were left milling about the city seeking relief from fire, shock and pain.  Many threw themselves into the Ota River which, by day’s end, was awash with thousands of corpses.

Just three days later, American forces dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the port city of Nagasaki.  In a hellish instant, thirty percent of the city and 40,000 of its citizens ceased to exist.

The devastation resulting from the nuclear bombs was clearly of Biblical proportion.  All tolled, the loss of human life may have numbered a quarter million.

But merely rehashing the details of the nuclear destruction we imposed does not tell the whole story.  The truth is, the bombs accomplished an even greater measure of good.  Not only did they end World War II within a week, they prevented an alternative strategy from being deployed — one which would have resulted in far more bloodshed for Japanese and Americans alike.

Many of us know about the atrocities of Nazi Germany, but fail to realize the level of brutality demonstrated by Japan between 1931 and 1945.  During those years, barbaric Japanese invaders murdered roughly 2 million civilians and tortured countless others, as they sought to conquer China.

Accounts from both Nanking and Chungking tell of episodes in which the Japanese rounded up Chinese citizens, tied them together in bunches with ropes, poured gasoline over them, and ignited them.

In December, 1937, Japan’s army finally captured Nanjing, at that time the capital of China.  In the six weeks that followed, the Japanese forces not only ravaged China’s national treasures, but conducted killing contests in which civilians were buried or burned alive, drowned, decapitated or made targets for bayonet practice.

Like their German counterparts, they subjected children to medical experiments involving germ injections, amputations, and surgeries without anesthetic.  Sex crimes committed by Japan against the women of Asia are both numerous and well documented.  Certainly no student of history would suggest that the Japanese, who along with the Germans and Americans were frantically attempting to develop nuclear weapons, would have been morally opposed to using “the bomb” against American civilians.

In the absence of nuclear force, Americans would have been left with General George Marshall’s plan for an island-by-island invasion.  The projected cost of the mission was estimated as high as half a million American lives.

Few doubt the Japanese would have fiercely resisted such an attempt.  Like their suicide-bombing counterparts of today, they had long ago traded reason for fanaticism.

Since they believed their emperor to be divine, carrying out the wishes of the emperor was a sacred duty.  At both Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Japanese soldiers abandoned their wounded in order to virtually fight to the last man.  Many chose to be burned alive in their caves rather than concede.  The well-known Kamikaze pilots, trained in suicidal crash attacks, are the poster children for this mentality.

In phase one of Marshall’s plan, Operation Olympic, 650,000 Americans would have been sent to try to capture the island of Kyushu.  The Japanese were prepared to defend their turf with 540,000 troops and 5,000 kamikaze planes, virtually assuring a historic bloodbath.

In Operation Coronet, an assembled invasion force of two million men were deemed necessary to victoriously sustain the long, arduous drive toward Tokyo.  The Japanese government, in preparation for such an Allied invasion, added to the cataclysmic potential by supplying domestic households with guns, knives and explosives.

The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented those dreadful scenarios.  But, don’t expect America’s critics, who will use the anniversary of this occurrence to point the bony finger at Uncle Sam, to bring it up in their empty-headed, hand-wringing diatribes.

Those critics may not understand history, but they do understand human nature.  They know that it is our tendency to focus on what has occurred without considering what might have happened had the action not taken place.

Consider Iraq.  We can easily contemplate the economic costs and loss of life, as well as the myriad of other undeniable downsides of what has occurred.  However, the downside of having taken another path cannot be so easily calculated — and is therefore, often minimized.  Such is the luxury of the critic.

When we think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we cannot help being reminded of the horrors of war.  But, no apologies from the United States are necessary.  The Japanese have only their Emperor and those who blindly followed him to blame for those fateful events in the summer of 1945.

All Americans should be grateful to President Truman for his decision to nuke Japan.  In doing so, he not only protected Americans from fanatical tyrants, but he allowed many of our fathers and grandfathers to continue living.  For that, he deserves unwavering praise.

Hearts Towards Home – Military and PTSD Talk Radio Show

Hearts Towards Home

Blog Talk Radio Show
1st Show July 13

Sunday’s 11:30 pm to 12:30 am

Central Time

following: Pat Dollards Jihadikiller Hour Show

Host Reverend Don is a former Combat Marine

who served in the Vietnam War.

Don will share his personal experiences with PTSD

and how it has affected his life today

and the struggles of the past.

When you feel like there is no hope

or totally out of place

then join

Don and His Co-Host “The Humble Infidel”

for an in-depth discussion that may change your life.

Semper Fi

Register at BTR Here

Hope And Change Worth Having Without An Obama Racial Test

Posted on July 10, 2008
By Marie Jon’

Let us be extremely wary when we ask for “change.” The Democrat Party is guilty of injecting race into the presidential campaign. America is no longer a racist country, and Americans are deeply offended when it is portrayed as such. These accusations and the apprehension tied to them have been insidiously worked into our collective subconscious. Keep that in mind when you’re feeling guilty for something in which you most likely took no part. The days of slavery and segregation are gone.

It is not anyone’s imagination that voices of dissent have been heard throughout our land ever since Obama became a lightning rod for Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s bigoted inflammatory words: “God Damn America.”

Something very evil
has been purposefully created. Many Americans know and feel this. Some can’t quite put their finger on it, but they can sense trouble. If we are not wise and prudent, our country will move into a very dangerous area. This is not the time for problems caused by manipulative racial divisiveness.

It has been noted that, in his world, it is perfectly acceptable for Barack Obama to play the race card. He will undoubtedly continue to do so if and when he sits in the Oval Office. Obama is not a uniter; he only sounds like one. What legislator will dare question President Obama with the spectre of being branded a racist looming before them?

It was
no coincidence that the woman who sang at the Denver State of The City Address was inspired to change the words of our National Anthem. She did so because Obama is the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democrat Party. The lyrics to “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” were intermingled with the melody of The Star Spangled Banner. The Black National Anthem was used to create hostility and division where none should exist. When interviewed, Rena Marie said she would do it over again. She recanted her apologies later on and appeared to be not only disrespectful, but antagonistic.

As the campaign clock ticks on, more unpleasant tactics will be employed. When it becomes excruciatingly obvious, it will be too late to retreat from a very disingenuous dialogue about race.

Black activism and activist churches are dividing America. The sanctuaries of these churches contain political pulpits. There is far too much harsh rhetoric spoken openly during a time that God intended for worship and reflection upon His word. It is taking its toll upon our society, because what is spoken inside of a church has repercussions on the outside.

Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not of the uppermost importance to the pastors therein. Let it be understood that what is being taught in these militant denominations is called the “Social Gospel.” Scripture is set aside and replaced with man-made theology.

So far, religion has been a big part of this election. In March, Obama gave a speech about race to cover up for his former pastor. Dr.James Dobson accused Obama of distorting the Bible. Obama has never made a clear statement about his present attitude towards Rev. Wright, Rev.Otis Moss III or Father Michael Pfleger. If he is elected, it is more than likely that they will be allowed back into his good graces once again.

Hold on America. Seems like there may be more ranting and scolding in store for us…

It is not by chance that Obama is proposing a government-funded faith based program. Church-affiliated programs where the Bible is not taught in a traditional manner will benefit from Sen. Obama’s plan. While there will probably be some that reject the plan to maintain their religious liberty, organizations such as Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition will have its coffers filled to overflowing. The devil is in the details.

The United Church of Christ as well as those which belong to the Council of Churches are made up of far Left constituents. Their biblical teachings are progressive. They have no problem updating God’s immutable word to meet the needs of the immorality that they embrace. A big government-funded faith-based program will not bother them in the least.

The plain truth needs to be understood. A black Republican presidential candidate would not have brought with him the racial rumblings being heard today. The party of Abraham Lincoln is not invested in the color of a person’s skin; only the Democrat Party takes an unhealthy interest in color. Anyone can be a success story in America; the opportunities are there for the taking.

Obama is a questionable man. He obviously cares little for the issue of the company he has kept, then thrown under the bus on his way to the White House. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the New Black Panther Party are cheering for an Obama presidency. Various radical groups and people gravitate toward him. That alone should trouble all Americans.

This upcoming election is being viewed by some as a test. America has shown a willingness to vote a black president into office and lead our nation, but what we need at this crucial hour is an experienced leader. This fact is race-neutral. Hope and change that is worth having should not bring with it an Obama candidacy racial test. America simply cannot afford such disunity.

It is not anyone’s imagination that voices of dissent have been heard throughout our land ever since Obama became a lightning rod for Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s bigoted inflammatory words: “God Damn America.” Something very evil has been purposefully created. Many Americans know and feel this. Some can’t quite put their finger on it, but they can sense trouble. If we are not wise and prudent, our country will move into a very dangerous area. This is not the time for problems caused by manipulative racial divisiveness..”The Obama candidacy is indeed a test — a test not of American voters, but of Barack Obama.” — Michael Barone

Related Readings:

Wake Up the White Folk: Rev. Lainie Dowell

Dr.James Dobson accuses Obama of distorting the Bible


Focus on The Family talks about Barack Obama:Listen

Marie Jon’ is a political/religious-based writer and founder of www.DrawingClose.org — a sister website to RenewAmerica. Marie extends her hand of welcome; visit DrawingClose and receive your free gift of salvation by taking an online Bible study. Join Christians from all over the world by becoming a free member of GO Fellowship. The website is a nondenominational gathering of believers.

Marie’s writings have appeared on many sites, including The New Media Journal, ChronWatch, and ABCNews, to name a few. She is a regular columnist for CapitolHillCoffeeHouse, The Daley Times Post, RenewAmerica, The Conservative Voice, Newsbull, GreatAmericanJournal.com, Radiofreewesthartford.com, Conservativecrusader.com, RightSideNews.com and WesternFrontAmerica.com.

For more, visit the CrossAction News home page, delivering the latest breaking Christian conservative news, updated regularly with continuous coverage of Christian topics and world events

For Rupublicans – Why Do We Need A Party and How Are We Going To Win Elections In The Future?

Cross Posted from Rethink

Written by Ashok Karra

All of us are familiar with the story that the Founders were opposed to political parties, and those of you who have gone through the previous posts on faction and equality can see deep arguments for why parties are a problem. The two I’m thinking of right now are:

  1. Parties increase the chance that a majority faction imposes its will.
  2. Parties make it hard for us to relate to each other as citizens; we think of each other as means to an end (pro-choicers ally with leftist evangelicals to get what they want), or we attack each other for similarly artificial reasons.

Right now, though, we’re seeing a classic case of why parties are absolutely necessary. Poor Senator McCain, in this age of candidate centered elections, doesn’t have a media fawning over him or anywhere near the slick marketing Senator Obama has. What Senator McCain could use is a Republican party that was halfway decent.

1. Problem: the Republican party is in shambles. Congress is most certainly lost for several cycles now. Most observers are placing blame at President Bush, but truth be told, everyone blames President Bush for everything. I actually think he was the last great hope for saving this party, and it was the structure of the political landscape that was too big an obstacle.

Consider – in 2000, when Vice President Gore was whining, Republicans were furious. Those “Sore Loserman” buttons were hilarious; there wasn’t DailyKos with the sort of leverage it had but there were plenty of right-wing media outlets online with almost similar power. It didn’t look like this party had anywhere near a dour mood. In 2002 and 2004 again elections were delivered and it looked like the Republican party was a force to be reckoned with for some time.

People underestimate just how good a campaigner President Bush is – we might never have seen anyone as good at campaign strategy as he is. Consistently the base was energized and new voters were being pitched to, for a time. Furthermore, he and Rove had a strategy to bring in Latino voters: he had (has) real concern for the future of the party, knowing that a party that’s growing old and with an active but small Evangelical component can’t win elections forever.

The deepest problem with this story – the reason why the Republican party has fallen apart now – is that President Bush was too good, and up against too much. Could any one person really build the Republican party for the future?

We, who were Republicans, took too much for granted.

I’ll prove it to you – go onto right-wing websites and ask how many people on those sites are younger than 40. It’s hilarious talking to other conservatives: numbers of them I’ve talked to dismiss younger people, the ones sometimes paying their Social Security now, as “dumb” and “ignorant” (I’m not going to humiliate the person who said this. I don’t talk to her anymore anyway). It’s really clear most people on the Right are older, much much older. And they’re doing their best to keep younger people away from the party, by setting a tone that makes it sound like young people have no concerns besides drugs and getting laid.

Case in point: I should vote Democrat. I know very few on the Republican side right now who could care less for what I teach. Why don’t I just vote for the party that will give federal dollars via a blank check to universities and give me more opportunites for a cush tenured job? Where does the Republican party cater to my self-interest, given the fact I do have qualifications and make something of them every single day?

Not once in these last 8 years of Republican rule was a serious attempt made by the party to build the party.

People want to blame Republican candidates for this. But that’s utter nonsense: the issue is larger than any given candidate. The young/old divide has occurred because the party has no common ground other than a vague appeal to values.

The same thing holds for the Democrats, btw: Senator Obama has so little experience that he might turn out to be one of our most conservative presidents. Who knows how the reality of holding power and being in charge of the military will shape him? And it’s not like he keeps his promises. What motivates Democrats right now is a vague sense that he’s Progressive. But there’s a big difference between catering to the Samantha Power crowd and actually endorsing their views because you believe them.

When we lost sight of the particular interests that should make us partisan, we became susceptible to how a campaign makes us feel. That inability to be specific, I submit, occurred with candidate-centered elections. Stripping the parties of their power actually alienated us from the electoral process more. Now we can choose what candidate we like, sure, but we have no clue what he stands for.

Whereas if the parties meant something, you would have to be able to articulate reasons for why you liked the party, as opposed to saying “I’m afraid of the other guy.” And if you have areas where you and the party disagree, you have to be vocal and make it clear that your voice matters. (Notice that I’m dodging any idea that there was a golden age of American democracy: I submit the process before this was probably too corrupt and insider. This process, though, might border on meaningless.)

So what you’re seeing in the Republican young/old problem is an appeal to values so vague that it is the mere tone which causes friction. The older elements just can’t stand hearing the younger ones, and that’s the divorce in a nutshell. Notice that the older elements drive the mindlessness of conservative media: How many times do Malkin and LGF and Rush and the rest have to repeat the same story? Isn’t there something a bit different to talk about? No? We’re gonna talk about the same thing for 8 years? Alright…

2. Solution: The Left has it halfway correct online. They’ve got people talking and creating, they’re active. They moved to increase participation here, and that alone won them midterms and will probably win them the Presidency. Even though the Obama campaign uses the Internet more than it uses him, there’s no doubt in my mind we would even be talking about Obama if it weren’t for the Internet.

Where they have it wrong is that none of this is building a party. Kos can preach “winnerism” and talk in terms of taking the party back, but I don’t think the wins are the same thing as having a party.

What a party does is plan for the future: forget Obama. Forget these Congressional elections. What do you want America to look like 10, 20 years from now? And what sorts of citizens will it have and how will it involve you?

The party takes the present concerns and makes them a platform. It gives a vision for America. Statesmen then determine what’s feasible and proper and work from there. But that looking ahead is critical: without it, all people do is attack each other over the pettiest of issues. Politics loses any sense of nobility.

I realize some of you probably remember C.S. Lewis saying the problem with Communism is that it believes in the future. That sort of applies to what I’m talking about: in a sense, this is an instantiation of the general will I’m working with here. But on a very real level, making pronouncements like “no one is allowed to think of the future” is simply idiotic. Of course you’re thinking of the future. You have hopes. And you should have a place to invest those hopes and deliberate with others, and you should be allowed to look ahead and ask for the country you want. It’s a free country.

You don’t have that option nowadays. All you’re allowed to do is ask for very specific things, like gasoline. To ask for those specific things, you need to embrace “change” and “hope,” or conversely the “maverick” who stood up to “special interests.” You must make a moral choice based on the tone of the candidate in order to get gas to drop a few pennies. The specific policy doesn’t originate from a genuine partisanship, or a real concern on the part of citizens. It only exists because the abstract appeals are so vacuous there’s nothing else to say in our media-obsessed world.

You already know the solution. I want to turn as much of the Internet as possible into a real teaching tool. And I want parties to take the lead.

I want the Democrats to help their members learn about John Dewey and the history of American labor and Margaret Sanger and Marx and Rousseau. I want them to be able to talk about Keynes and not have to go to Paul Krugman for quick and dirty talking points. I want to see Democrats that have an awareness of their party and country historically, and where progressivism fits into a larger scheme of ideas. I also want them to know what the other party’s ideas are and where they come from. Maybe Ayn Rand and Hayek should be on Democrat reading lists, at the least.

Maybe there should be a Democratic reading list.

I want Republicans to sponsor classes for anyone willing to learn, and yes, I volunteer to teach them. I will gladly teach Lincoln, Jefferson, the Federalist and go back to Locke and Blackstone and all that stuff if need be. I’ll even throw in a Bible reading seminar of an interfaith sort – we’ll read the Bible as literature.

This sounds ridiculous – the parties as educative – but think about what I’m asking. All I’m saying is that people should know why they believe what they believe. In the absence of formal education caring to do this, and instead only teaching specialized skills for making money, the party that embraced this would do a civic duty of the highest magnitude. It wouldn’t just inform its members politically: it would banish the utter chaos and vapidness of what we call politics today and bring back politics simply. We’d be better as people for being citizens, and I see nothing wrong with that.

A Life Repaid

This is cross posted From the Fighting Fifth Marines Blog.