Newark Army National Guard Troops in Cuba

[John Sharpe James, J.D.]

I just got a call from my old unit on Roseville Avenue who are stationed in Cuba. They said everything is well there considering what they have been hearing about Iraq.

Let us all wish them our best regards and safe return to Newark!

THEY ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THEY MONITOR THIS SITE FOR NEWS ABOUT NEWARK......SO THANKS AGAIN 5 REASONS FOR GIVING ALL NEWARKERS A BETTER WAY TO COMMUNICATE!

STAY SAFE GUYS!

GO ARMY! GO GUARD!

[black4rob2]

They get much love from me......

Rob

[ProSouth]

I know you guys are doing Newark proud over there. Stay safe and bring dat ass home :D . You guys deserve to be home with your families. Much respect.

[luvsnewark]

The sacrifice you guys present is overwhelming and you do newark proud you guys are the definitely the diamond in the ruff

[army1lt]

Thanks a Lot Captain James. The post was truly appreciated down here in Cuba. The end may not be too close, We might be going over to the "sandbox" once we return to Newark. I hope all is safe up there with you and yours. The men here a trying to stay strong and cope but a year away from family and friends is taking a toll on many of them. See you in April

LT

[ProSouth]

You guys don't forget to vote in November for the guy that's going to bring you home and that's FOR ANYONE BUT BUSH. You guys are dying in Iraq for nothing but some damn oil. So handle that and make your votes count. Your families don't care about no Democrat or Republican crap. They just want you guys home. Vote Anyone But Bush.

[MrTim1955]

My partner has a cousin serving in Cuba. We're really happy he is there rather than in Iraq.

We support all the troops whereever they are in the world. And we support Kerry in the hopes that he will be able to bring them home safely.

Keep up the good work!!

[Doofus1]

Hey, for all of you think Kerry is the right guy for Iraq, here a few interesting quotes from the debate along with William Safire's comments from the Times:

"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground," Kerry volunteered. "And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists. ... You've got to show you're serious." Right on, John! Although he added his standard softener of "sharing the stakes" with "the rest of the world," he issued his radically revised military policy: wipe out resistance in terrorist strongholds like Falluja, which requires us to inflict and accept higher casualties.

Just as Kerry propounded his get-tough tactics, the first phase of the assault on centers of insurgency had begun. U.S. troops, blazing the way for recently trained Iraqi forces, have kept their appointment in Samarra. More than 200 insurgents have been killed or captured in that city in the Sunni triangle, beginning to open the area for elections.

At the same time, our aerial strikes at the safe houses of Zarqawi killers in Falluja have intensified. Kerry's belated but welcome hawkish call to "change the dynamics on the ground" supports the joint U.S.-Iraqi seizure of control of that terrorist haven. It will be bloody, but such use of firepower in "serious" denial of sanctuary should save lives in the long run.

Next, to grand strategy: Kerry was asked by Jim Lehrer, "What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?" In the past, Kerry has given a safe never-say-never response, but last week he gave a Strangelovian answer: "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike." He pledged never to cede "the right to pre-empt in any way necessary'' to protect the U.S.

But in embracing his right to pre-empt - always derided in horror by the two-minutes-to-midnight crowd as impermissible "preventive war" - Kerry felt the need to interject: "That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war. And it was one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control."

If Kerry is telling the truth in the debate, then he would do what the Bush Pentagon is doing now: Eliminating the threats in Samarra, Falluja, etc. So where is the distinction? I don't see a huge distinction here other than Kerry's call for our friends to join us. For that reason, I think Kerry wins or loses solely on the economic issues. What he should focus on is the fact that Bush wants tax cuts at a time of war. Kerry should be arguing sacrifice at home requires no tax cuts and perhaps tax increases on gasoline and luxury goods. But he hasn't got the stones to do it.


p.s. Safire notes that Kerry got it wrong. Pre-emption is not a nuclear Cold War doctine. Massive retaliation and MAD were the doctrines that governed our actions in the nuclear standoff with the Soviets.