Kum Phuc

Do you know the story behind this photo?

Nick Ut / The Associated Press

If you think that this image has something to do with war-mongering Americans dropping napalm on innocent civilians, then perhaps it is time to reassess.

War Is Ugly

I was reading the news at the gym last week.  They had a story about a reporter that had died in the fighting in one Syrian city.  She only had one eye.  I don't know her name.

The point of her reporting was that the Syrians were pummeling the city and killing indiscriminately.  She said something the the effect that there were no military targets there.  Specifically, she said there was no "base" there.  The stateside reporter reminded her that the Syrian Free Army was in the area.  The reporter in Syria blithely dismissed that and went on protesting that they were killing innocent civilians.  After all, the SFA didn't have a "base".

Why was she surprised?  This is a war.

The wars of the 20th century were truly civilized when compared with the rest of human history.  It was common practice to kill and enslave until all your enemies were dead or enslaved.  The line from the original Conan the Barbarian movie was the rule.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

There was no letting up.  There was no avoiding civilians.

This is the sort of war that non-Western, non-democratic cultures routinely practiced.  The stark difference between the two is what should make the practice of war by Western, democratic cultures all the more unique.

Do they not teach history in journalism school any more?

No Coincidences Revisited - POW/MIA Day 2011

I posted this on my original "Dain Bramage" blog back on 9 September 2006.  I offer it again in recognition of National POW/MIA Day.

And in honor of Scott D. Ketchie.  A son of Alabama who has yet to return home.  I remain honored to wear a bracelet bearing his name.

Jaw Droppingly Stupid.

I infrequently engage in partisan phrases like "Smart Diplomacy!" and "The country is in the very best of hands!".  That sort of thing feels good, but it isn't really the sort of substantive criticism that I prefer to offer.

The last time I checked, most people prefer ice cream and cake to brussel sprouts and liver pate.

In this case, both bits are partisan fluff seem most appropriate.  The Obama administration has supported a call by the OAS for Britain to engage in discussions with Argentina regarding the sovereignty dispute over the Falklands.

Again!

For the people of the Falklands, there is no dispute.  They are British.  For the UK, there is no dispute.  The Falklands are British and have been British for roughly 178 years.  The Falklands have been British for longer than Argentina has had its current constitution.

In adopting this position, Mr. Obama's administration is siding with anti-American dictators like Hugo Chavez along with other anti-American leaders such as Daniel Ortega.  Obviously, his administration is also siding against our long and close ally, Great Britain.  Somehow this is the sort of 'smart diplomacy' that we were promised during the campaign?

From the comments comes the non-sequitur that sums this fiasco up most appropriately:

The next president is going to have to engage in a serious apology tour.

The mind, it boggles.