Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Nobody dared answer the question 12
And so I'm reposting here, on the topic of supporting the troops but not the mission:
Ok. Now put on some camo, go to Iraq, and try to get to century old enemies to quit blowing the hell out of each other. Now have dozens of "important" senators and reps deride what you do while supposedly paying lip service to you. You cannot separate the person from the job when the job is soo closely linked to the very survival of the person. The job becomes the person, for better or worse.
I don't support the misision. I don't support it because it is not a possible mission. I don't care how many troops you put in, you will never get those century old enemies to quit blowing the hell out of each other.
I think that it is a waste of lives, limbs, time, and treasure. But most importantly lives and limbs.
I believe this because of a documentary I saw on the History Channel last Saturday interviewing troops sent in to quell Fallujah's rebellion long enough to hold an election. From that point of view, they had a successfull mission- they cleared the city of insurgents, and the election was held. But the tactics they used were incredibly stupid- they'd throw five squadrons into a building, one at a time, to get shot at and killed, and then have to level the building from the air anyway in the end. Why not just level the building from the start? Because we like to "avoid colateral damage".
You can't stop a genocidal enemy without becoming genocidal yourself. Don't waste the lives of ground troops in an impossible situation. Pull them out and nuke the joint instead- I'll guarantee you you'll have no problems with insurgency in an area that is so radioactive it won't support human life. Of course, that would block our ability to extract oil from the region, so our government will never support a winable mission in this war.
I support the troops having a winnable mission. What's so wrong about wanting a REAL victory instead of a waste of life of our troops?
Ok. Now put on some camo, go to Iraq, and try to get to century old enemies to quit blowing the hell out of each other. Now have dozens of "important" senators and reps deride what you do while supposedly paying lip service to you. You cannot separate the person from the job when the job is soo closely linked to the very survival of the person. The job becomes the person, for better or worse.
I don't support the misision. I don't support it because it is not a possible mission. I don't care how many troops you put in, you will never get those century old enemies to quit blowing the hell out of each other.
I think that it is a waste of lives, limbs, time, and treasure. But most importantly lives and limbs.
I believe this because of a documentary I saw on the History Channel last Saturday interviewing troops sent in to quell Fallujah's rebellion long enough to hold an election. From that point of view, they had a successfull mission- they cleared the city of insurgents, and the election was held. But the tactics they used were incredibly stupid- they'd throw five squadrons into a building, one at a time, to get shot at and killed, and then have to level the building from the air anyway in the end. Why not just level the building from the start? Because we like to "avoid colateral damage".
You can't stop a genocidal enemy without becoming genocidal yourself. Don't waste the lives of ground troops in an impossible situation. Pull them out and nuke the joint instead- I'll guarantee you you'll have no problems with insurgency in an area that is so radioactive it won't support human life. Of course, that would block our ability to extract oil from the region, so our government will never support a winable mission in this war.
I support the troops having a winnable mission. What's so wrong about wanting a REAL victory instead of a waste of life of our troops?
A better solution. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait....
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.ht m [commondreams.org]
http://en.internationalepolitik.de/archiv/2002/spr ing2002/early-american-support-for-the-taliban.htm l [internationalepolitik.de]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#19 40s:_The_Shah_comes_to_power [wikipedia.org]
Maybe we should just quit installing people who later turn into our worst enemy? I swear that the CIA must be trying to undermine the US; either that or they are just really really inept.
Exactly what sprung to my mind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that they are beyond help. The problem is the help they want is something we're not willing to give; and the help we offer they don't want.
What they want and what they need (Score:2)
Furthermore, the help they need (I'm not sure if I'm interested in the help they want) is also something that we're not willing to give, and possibly not able to give.
Re: (Score:2)
-Help they need: splitting the country into three parts with some form of trade between the three new countries & new Iraqi-owned corporations soaking up American money for "rebuilding".
-Help they want: a judiciary that will provide "justice" in the form of revenge for past sins.
-Help we're willing to provide: A weak democracy for a single country and "rebuilding" contracts for American-owned companies that have no accountability to the
Like we're going to agree ;) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is the fact that a big bully just came in and destroyed all of their infrastructure- without which modern society is impossible. That will have to be rectified as well....
Yeah, um, about that... (Score:2)
Err...
Uhh...
Hey, look! A shiny object!
Warriors never fail, but leaders make them fall! (Score:2)
Our Warriors never fail US, but our elected leaders and a few politically correct generals have failed our Warriors.
US Citizens always support their family and friends who are our Warriors, but holy-book thumper and any-flag waver political, corporate, and religious leaders for power and greed are our serial-killers and nation-morticians.
I know if we f
Re:Warriors never fail, but leaders make them fall (Score:2)
I'd add one more thing- the goal must be within the realm of physical and anthropological theory as we understand it today.
The stated goal in Iraq (a democratic government containing some form of power sharing between all ethnicities) is not within anthropological theory as we currently understand it, and therefore is about as useful of a goal for o