Comments for Imagine you�re thirteen again�

Imagine you�re thirteen again�

2005-10-13T15:52:38Z

�and you have a history test in school tomorrow. I�ll give you a couple of seconds to adjust your mindset. Ready?

Okay, what are some of the things you�re worried about?

[Awww, man�all those names of dead people and dates that happened before I was born and places that I�ll never even go to! How�m I ever gonna remember all that stuff? And then there�s�]

Yeah, things look a lot different from a thirteen-year-old�s perspective, doesn�t it?

Now let me add two items to your perspective.

1. You�re a thirteen-year-old girl.

2. You live in Mosul.

Ever wonder what it�s like to really, really hope you get to school without being blown to pieces by a car bomb?

Meet somebody who can tell you. Meet Sunshine�

...and after you've read what she's said, you can add this to the reasons we need to win this thing: so that thirteen-year-old girls won't have to be afraid of being killed just because some scumbucket thinks that little girls shouldn't go to school.

Wahabism delenda est!

Thank you, Lady Christine, for finding Sunshine....

Comment from Justthisguy on 2005-10-14

2005-10-14T06:59:10Z

Well, lessee. When I was thirteen, I was in Eighth Grade History class learning all about the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850, etc, when the PA system came alive with the Principal's voice announcing that Jack Kennedy had just been shot. Sorta made me a history fan, ever since. As to "feculent", I had to look that up. I also looked up "cack-handed" too, recently, after seeing it mentioned at The Corner of NRO. They're both rather nasty terms, but require a bit of education to know them and use them properly, 'specially by a non-natively English-speaker. My opinion? The United States of America, or *somebody*, needs to make sure that kid can complete her education without getting blown up.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2005-10-13

2005-10-13T23:10:15Z

Besides, *anyone* who can use the word 'feculent' appropriately is a voice the civilized world *must* sustain!

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2005-10-13

2005-10-13T19:34:56Z

One of the results of toppling Saddam after Gulf I would likely have been increasing the size of Iran by the size of Iraq. Add Saddam's then-nascent nuke program to Iran's virulent anti-US stance. Subtract the Iranian populace's current disaffection with the mullahcracy. Multiply by a secure al-Qaeda occupying terrain between Zaranj (Afghanistan) and Zahedan (Iran) with secure access to transportation nodes. The right side of that particular equation is downright scary...

Comment from AFSister on 2005-10-13

2005-10-13T18:48:13Z

Sgt. B.... yes, Mr. Obvious. But needed. *WE* all know that too, but there are soooo many people that don't. Sometimes they just have to be beat over the head with the reality bat. Blake- I'm with you on your opening remarks! I never wanted Bush to go forward with the initial invasion. I wanted Sr. to finish the job way back when, but that didn't happen either. I'm just glad it's getting done now, Saddam is gone, and Iraq will stand on its own two feet soon. I couldn't be prouder of our military than I am right now.

Comment from Sgt. B. on 2005-10-13

2005-10-13T18:35:24Z

April, Yes ma'am... While all of the politicians and armchair analysts dicker about whether GWB took us to war over imagined WMDs, or whatever the reason, the view from my vantage point is far simpler: We went to war to free a people. Regardless if Haliburton and other major corporations provide the infrastructure upon which the new Iraq is built, the fact remains that, once stability is restored, children will be able to attend school, grow up with their memories and "lessons learned", and eventually participate in charting the course for their country. They deserve this, and a nation as powerful as the United States was the obligation to help them make this happen. The fact that the Iraqi people are intelligent, strong-willed, and courageous, and that their security forces show every ability to take on more and more of the mission of defending their country should be the glimmer that is the light at the end of the tunnel. Our exit strategy should be simple to discern: When the Iraqis are proven to be fully capable of dealing with their own internal affairs, the coalition forces will, for the most part, fade out of the picture... (I'm probably stating the obvious in this company, but there are so many folks out there that don't seem to see that...)

Comment from April on 2005-10-13

2005-10-13T17:42:18Z

I've been reading Sunshine's blog for some time. It really puts things in perspective. And, like blake.kirk, I've had my internal conflicts over the war in Iraq. But every time I see a woman still wearing a burqa or chodor, or hear stories like Sunshine's, I am all gung-ho and wish I wasn't too old to put on the boots myself. Maybe we DO have a responsibility to crush this kind of medieval system, wherever it exists.

Comment from blake.kirk on 2005-10-13

2005-10-13T16:15:40Z

I've never tried to conceal the fact that I thought at the time that we were getting into a war with Iraq at the wrong time and with grossly inadequate justification. That having been said, we now have an obligation to the people of Iraq to leave them with a stable country where, by way of example, it is safe for young women to walk to school. Heck, I can still remember parents in Grenada in 1983 thanking us American soldiers and marines for ending the unrest there after the coup, and making it safe for their children to go to school again. iraq deserves no less of us. Which is why I'm expecting to be back here in the CENTCOM AOR several more times in the future.