One of the most courageous and intrepid of all - Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez: http://www.cplsanchez.info/

But I'm just a 100-pound middle-aged female, hardly a candidate for the Army,

Kasimara

Have you tried, Kass? I bet they would take you! And it's not as if there were no other available ways to help! Homeland Security is desperate for agents and employees, and there is always the private security industry or a military contractor.

Are you just going to sit there, all 100 lbs. of you, and wait for them to come to you? My God, Kass, do you know what they do to a white women. I will spare you the details, but don't count on being one of the 72 afterwards.

For a citizen who is aware of the existential danger posed by the onslaught of Koranic atrocities, you seem awfully unwilling to participate in your own defense. You are not counting on this crowd to do it, are you? Cause I don't even think they care that Islam-a-bad-bad-bad!

And don't let that recruiter give you a "no: for an answer, we need gals like you to hold off the hordes.

of this:

http://www.rpstudios.net/sshistory.html

The first battle at Bull Run (also called First Manassas), fought during July 21, 1861, was a unique affair in several ways. It was the first major battle of the Civil War. It was fought for the most part by green amateur militia units in front of ladies and gentlemen from Washington, D.C., that actually went out to watch the battle as if it were going to be a picnic.

Also reminded me of an educational video a professor friend of mine recently created, called Militainment, Inc., which is about the militarization of our society and pop culture - the slack voyeurism of modern war as common to so many armchair warriors.

http://apocalicious.blogspot.com/2007/08/box-cover-very-exciting.html

Overgrown children, overcompensating.

Shooter, kindly read the post again.
Steyn is not saying that Greenwald "has a point" that he (Steyn) is part of a "right-wing bloggers who can't sleep at night," rather that he "has a point" which is not, and never has been, that "[i]t's psychologically exhausting being on permanent Orange Alert."

Hey, I've been wrong before but this actual quote seems pretty clear to me.....

Glenn - nobody cares about adolescent Terrorist game-playing like this any longer.
Steyn - Okay, a small comment. He may have a point: It's psychologically exhausting being on permanent Orange Alert, especially as the reason for it recedes further and further in the rear-view mirror.

It sure looks a concession that "fearmongering" is passe' to me.

-When someone like Omar Ahmad of the Council of American Islamic Relations claims that "the Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," I believe he means what he says, just as I believe Imam Zaid Shakir, former chaplain at Yale University, when he says that "Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and commandments of Allah."-

I believe the imposition of 'Christianity' and 'Democracy' on the world no less a threat.

And you cite Muslim honor-killings of teenage girls, beheadings, suicide bombings while the US government spies on its own citizens and, presumably, its political opponents, wages illegal undeclared wars, commits propaganda against its own populous, offers individuals and corporations immunity to cover its own crimes, incarcerates the world's and it's own citizens illegally and in perpetuity unless it sees fit to engage them in show trials without adequate and unfettered access to legal counsel, a basic human right, and denies them even POW status, supplanting the phrase with the Orwellian 'enemy combatant' so that they might not seek redress in the event that could in fact be innocent, something that is supposed to be a presumption on Constitutional grounds in America.

The US administration is no more or less criminal than the leaders of the terrorists. And I stress 'criminal' because crimes are what we are talking about and crimes should be dealt with by police action, not massive miltary strikes and invasion of sovereign countries. The body count is so much lower and its much less expensive and a great deal more effective, as Europe has proven time and again.

I ask, because if you are pricks about the whole thing, this step forward will be withdrawn.

Gosh, Shooter, maybe you could plead with Steyn for us? Tell him we were joking! I just don't know what we will do if "this step forward will be withdrawn"

But Mr. Greenwald apparently sees no threat, only paranoia, because "it doesn't happen here.". . . .Mr. Greenwald believes there is no threat.

I wrote:

Think of the emptiness and loss of purpose if the Threat from the Enemy were exaggerated and all of that faded away.

This is why our nation's faux-warriors can never be reasoned with. It's why their greatest fear is having the Threats from Our Enemies be put into rational perspective, alongside all the other garden-variety manageable threats we face. To argue that they are exaggerating and melodramatizing the Enemy and the threat is to take away from them that which is most personally important to them.

Surely you can, on your own, without any futher help, see that the way you tried to charaterize my argument is completely contradicted by what I actually wrote.

Having said that, it takes a pretty active (and unhealthy) sense of paranoia to believe that the imposition of sharia on America by radical Muslims is anything that is imminent, likely or achievable, no matter how super-scary it all might be.

Setting aside Mr. Greenwald's amusing ad-hominems against his opponents, complete with snide insinuations of cowardice and impotence (I especially liked "tragically small and shrinking" remark) . . . .

That meaning didn't occur to me when I wrote that. You just invented in your head when you read that sentence.

I served under LBJ and then Nixon.

I don't wish to pursue it here, but I think poor Lyndon just got in over his head in lots of ways when you recall what his reform goals were as against what he was forced to do in military terms, and Westmoreland was a terrible commander in those circumstances. LBJ picked the wrong general at the wrong time.

Just so that I don't come across as anything other than myself - I am 38, and never served. I have, however, had a pretty good fetish for American History of the 60's since I was a whippersnapper, and was wondering -

Why does LBJ get such a free pass on a lot of this stuff from people? I mean, I have read the Great Society speech, and find it inspiring, and I have an idea how much political capital he spent to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts through - all good things. But he continually, habitually, and catastrophically LIED HIS ASS OFF to the American people about Vietnam: troop numbers (The Original Surge ™), military advances and the like - at best out of some sense of paranoid benevolent anti-communist instinct, and at worst because it was politically expedient to maintain and expand the conflict in order to be able to campaign and govern as being tough and righteous in the face of the Communist threat.

Much of the worst of the COINTELPRO violations took place during his administration, and the Chicago Democratic convention was during his watch as well.

All in all, I admire the guy for what he was trying to do, but I hate his methods and would like to see him called out a little bit more for he damage he did. It is a little too simplistic just to vilify Nixon - as tempting as that is, because Nixon was scum, plain and simple.

From the information available now, looking back at the period, it seems to have been a reasonable position to take during the 68 election that a vote for Nixon was an anti-war vote. That is FUBAR, and the blame for that has to be put on Johnson.