Not to be read by Americans!!!! | 118 comments (118 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Most Americans who fought in Vietnam (none / 1)

Were conscripted.

They didn't want to be there.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 06:25:36 PM EST

Re: Most Americans who fought in Vietnam (4.00 / 6)

Yes, as German soldiers in WW II. Still for me those who died by the hands of a hangman for deserting are the heros, not those who died for victory.

And nowadays, Democrats in the US vote for retroactive immunity for the telecom industry, but not for amnesty for those soldiers, who were not willing to fight in Iraq an unjust aggressive war.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 06:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a saying in the U.S. (4.00 / 2)

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Generally it's applied, if you can believe this, to TRAFFIC LAW.

I believe it is also applicable to moral law.

It's difficult for me to go this far out on this ledge, but...

If you're in the military and you're fighting this "war," just how culpable ARE you, morally speaking? I mean, I know the general population of humankind isn't all that full-up on intellect, but...

This war is WRONG. It is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

SO just how culpable ARE all these TROOPS we all say we "support?"

I feel bad for them, I do. They're fucked. But a lot of them are fucking GUNG HO, MOTHERFUCKER. They're GLAD TO BE SERVING THEIR COUNTRY.

Well, is it not incumbent upon them as moral human beings to ask of themselves, "Just what am I DOING here? Just what does this SERVICE to my country ENTAIL, and isn't the 'My country, RIght or WROng' motto a morally flawed one?"

Because, goddamn, man, we as a species have been here long enough to be held accountable for not having LEARNED these lessons by now.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most Americans who fought in Vietnam (4.00 / 2)

The problem with these arguments is that they ignore the very personal moral issue/dilemma of when, under what conditions and how one should support his/her country's democratically mandated responsibility to provide for the common defense or carry out foreign policy. I'm not arguing about specific instances mentioned (Russia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc). The fact is that each occurrence requires a moral decision on the part of the potential soldier. The easiest decision to make is one to obey - even at the risk of death or participation in an event one considers immoral.

As pointed out, one may frequently make personal decisions about traffic laws (to obey or not obey) without major consequence, but a decision to ignore a lawful order during military duty (or even to fail to report for military duty as when conscripted) cannot be taken so lightly. One may argue that the lawfulness of such orders is determined by whether or not the order is legal and proper under the law, and this is true, but the burden to prove that the order was illegal can be heavy one. Usually, acts of war are only questioned when a country initiating them is defeated and held accountable by a victorious foe. Merely disagreeing with the decisions (or as pointed out above claiming ignorance) imposed by court or democratically elected authority is obviously not a defense. Conscientious objection has sometimes been used successfully in the US to avoid participation in military action, but this must also be justified.

The other side of the question is the morality of ignoring a peacekeeping role during immoral wars. For example, when should one take personal action to stop a conflict involving genocide. Is it immoral to talk and negotiate endlessly while whole populations are being wiped out? If one found himself a soldier under UN orders in Bosnia, powerless to stop the ethnic cleansing, when would it be morally permissible to refuse to serve under the UN mandate? When was it morally acceptable to serve under NATO orders in Bosnia? Was it OK for NATO to bomb Serbian/Rep Serpska positions, etc.?

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 01:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

excellent points, gringo.

on that note

M of A - Pakistan Under Zardari

Even if amerika has the resources which I doubt considering what else is on the plate. eg the dems will be determined to take on Chavez and Morales in Latin America and those won't be easy wins. The sort of 'wet work' on a massive scale required to achieve victory in Afghanistan is not suited to a multi-national task force.
It is one thing to get a wide national grouping of different military forces together to defend their homelands against a common enemy, but quite another to keep a range of different national cultures with differing motivations for being at war to engage in the sort of massive slaughter required to 'win' Afghanistan. Remember amerika dragged out the marine mass murderers and the'airborne' for Fallujah. Two armies from the same nation with similar mindsets created for murder on a mass scale.
I don't understand the details exactly of how one brainwashes hundreds of thousands of immature humans into massacring other humans on a huge scale but I suspect it is a tricky business, something that is generational, that is you can get one generation of soldiers to do it once but after that getting them to repeat the act is problematic. Sure some of them become psychopaths but that is not necessarily a good thing. They need to kill as directed not wantonly, and for every psychopath there are likely to be a number of other troops who grew up very quickly and will do anything to not have to repeat their murder spree.
Ending Iraq seems pretty good no doubt but amerika's forces are still recovering from Iraq they aren't ready for a new one. However much Obama may think he can sell the idea of peace through pulling outta Iraq and starting a whole new massacre in Afghanistan, I doubt amerikan voters have thought it through.

The reality of fresh mass murders so soon after the last horrors will make 'winning' Afghanistan very difficult.
I wonder if amerikans really have the stomach for another Iraq, a Fallujah where they will have to butcher another half million humans at least, while the world looks on aghast?
Time will tell but blocking the supply line should be regarded by humans inside and outside Afghanistan, inside and outside amerika as a good thing something there should be much more of, regardless of whether or not the motivation is selfish.
Posted by: Debs is dead

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 06:16:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

Excellent discussion Melo, and I found myself agreeing with the argument up to this point:

Ending Iraq seems pretty good no doubt but amerika's forces are still recovering from Iraq they aren't ready for a new one. However much Obama may think he can sell the idea of peace through pulling outta Iraq and starting a whole new massacre in Afghanistan, I doubt amerikan voters have thought it through.

The author seems to forget the trauma to the American psyche that was caused by the intentional mass murders that took place on 9/11 (the numbers could easily have been much worse - up to 50,000).

In my mind there is a distinct difference between a group setting out to deliberately murder as many innocent persons as possible to achieve a political purpose and a war conducted by a nation and fought under the international rules of war. BTW, I'm not referring to Iraq, which is a travesty regardless of the outcome, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 9/11; and I am not defending that war or the criminal actions of those in the American Government related to it or the "war on terror." My point is that terrorist actions are rightly seen as equally criminal in nature and the perpetrators should be pursued and treated as criminals.

With those thoughts in mind it is fallacious to equate war and terrorist actions except when those participating in war commit violations (crimes) of the rules of war.

While I vigorously opposed the administration's entry into Iraq as totally unjustified, I just as strongly believed that something had to be done about Afghanistan's Taliban run government and its support for the Al Qaeda criminals. Now that Al Qaeda appears to have been rejected by the Iraqi people, the organization has again turned to the Taliban and Afghanistan. Does this foreshadow a wholesale massacre of Afghan citizens by US/NATO troops. I certainly hope not and I do not believe it to be a necessary result.

However, one cannot expect the American and European peoples to stand idly by while Al Qaeda plots and carries out another series of attacks on civilian targets, and it is unlikely that they will. I reject the argument that left alone Al Qaeda will just go away and kill no more or that 9/11 was a one-time event never to be repeated. Should alternatives to military action be considered, absolutely. Is it possible to reconcile the Taliban or Al Qaeda's positions with those of the "West", maybe. All avenues should be explored, but we cannot afford to just do nothing.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

Gringo:

In my mind there is a distinct difference between a group setting out to deliberately murder as many innocent persons as possible to achieve a political purpose and a war conducted by a nation and fought under the international rules of war. BTW, I'm not referring to Iraq, which is a travesty regardless of the outcome, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 9/11; and I am not defending that war or the criminal actions of those in the American Government related to it or the "war on terror." My point is that terrorist actions are rightly seen as equally criminal in nature and the perpetrators should be pursued and treated as criminals.

point taken. i'm sure you speak for millions in the usa, and anyone who has been hit knows how you feel.

al quaida's perceived injustices were punished by 9/11, creating more of the same. they had declared war effectively through their corruption of the concept of jihad, and knew that there was no UN that would listen to them. they took a horrible option, just as 'we' are now in return, and so on and on, until the UN loses its israel/usa bias, and we stop treating the middle east like it's our armed personal warehouse for our energy needs. bin laden is certainly a lunatic killer, but surely it's only a fool would think he did it without some reason more than simple pathological paranoia and racial/religious hatred?

just to be clear, he was unutterably wrong to do what he did, but have our actions vis-a-vis the muslim and arab world not been maddening for centuries?

no wonder he's barking, we would be too... in fact i think we are, and no surge in afghanistan will convince me differently, unless it's a surge in genuine aid, not bombs.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

Melo, I certainly agree with everything you have said. The US is not at all guiltless in the current state of affairs and in the run up to 9/11. It is very likely true that those drawn to Al Qaeda feel powerless in the face of the international march towards globalization and thus felt compelled to take whatever drastic actions they have taken right or wrong. I actually feel sorry for them in the sense that we all have been victims of "progress" or injustices, some greater than others. Nevertheless, as with the man who robs banks because he really needs the money, illegal acts can't be condoned and one would be rather foolish to ignore a loaded gun aimed at one's head.

I think the real tragedy is that neither Americans nor members of Al Qaeda understand each other very well. For their part the typical American does not have a good understanding of what the US Govt. has done, in their name, to provoke so much hatred abroad, particularly in the Middle East and the Islamic world in general. Americans do not understand the consequence of the lack of even handedness by the US Govt in dealing with Israel over the Palestinian issue nor do they understand clearly the consequence of their government's support for despotic regimes in the name of business and trade.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 06:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

But it is not only a problem of moral, but as well of pratical issues.

The London terror attack was done by people born in the UK and living all their lives in the UK.
There are lots of countries which would provide enough lack of rule of law to be used by terrorists as base. The 'we will hunt the terrorists where they are wherever they hide' is impossible. Even if the resources would be there to attack every country. For a pseudomoralic justification you need as well nationbuilding. There may be resources for one or two big countries nation building, but not for a dozen.
The precision of war is lousy, you kill a lot more people than the few, who would likely engage in terror attacks. This killings may increase the propensity to do terror attacks by the remaining people - and gives them justification
There is zero possibility to control success. Nobody knows, if the war in Afghanistan has increased or reduced the likelyhood of further terror attacks. It is impossible to find out.
the war in Afghanistan reduces available resources. Al Kaida has attacked the US, because the US is in the middle east. Nobody who has openly looked to the motives of Al Kaida is denying that. The most important reason to be there is the stability of the major oil suppliers. With less expenditures for war, the US could have been much more energy efficient and independent by now.
what is the cost in whatsoever of another terror attack in the US compared with wars, in $, human live, international respect, future opportunities...

Yes, you don't want a bankrobber to get away, but even in the US the police will not kill a whole village to get one bankrobber, when they e.g. have proofs, that one of the people in the village must be the bankrobber, but they don't know who.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

OK, so how do you propose to deal with the problem of persons plotting and training for mass murder? Or would you just let it happen?

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

OK, so how do you propose to deal with the problem of persons plotting and training for mass murder? Or would you just let it happen?
Well, I would deal with the problem. The war in Afghanistan is not dealing with the problem, so what you suggest is not dealing with the problem.
People in terror camps anyhow are bad mass murderers. Therefore you need more sophisticated skills, which e.g. the 9/11 terrorists learned, uhmm, in the United States of America. And plotting I can do here in my home.

How to deal with the problem?
Lots of things, most of which are actually done.

securing critical vulnerabilities with sky marshalls, airplane courses, extra security personal in nuclear power plants, give the political responsibility for things like NORAD to people who are competent...
police work, secret service work: This has controlable success. So while you look to Afghanistan, our police locks terrorists, with enough proofs to go to ordinary court and send the terrorists to prison, no Guantanamo, no military tribunals needed
try to cut their financing
try diplomatic pressure on countries which are known to harbour terrorists
give carrots to countries, which are cooperating.
try to cut their popular support, by stopping to behave like an asshole

Of course a lot of these are already done (except of the last, it seems Bush wants more terrorists, not less), but the war in Afghanistan is not helpful.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 07:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

Martin, sounds to me like you're saying we should do basically what we were doing before 9/11, except of course not acting like assholes, only this time we should catch the terrorists before they strike.

I'll agree that this approach does work much of the time as it did before 9/11 and has since. But what if, (as long as we are playing with people's lives) despite our best efforts, something else like 9/11 or worse happens? What if we pull out of Afghanistan and the Taliban regains control, allows Al Qaeda to set up its training camps again and continues to plot. Maybe this time they'll learn to fly somewhere else and maybe they will just fly a few planes into Nuclear power plants, say in France. Can't happen? Tell me why it can't and I'll figure out a way to make it happen, and I'm just a mediocre, semi-paranoid, retired security person with no desire to commit suicide.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 10:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

Competent person in charge? No. 9/11 is mainly the fault of the Bush administration's incompetence. That by the way is the reason, why they have tried to prevent proper analysis of what went wrong.
As well there are quite a number of security issues, which were improved, since. Security is expensive and when for a long time nothing happens, it is attractive to let the level of vigilance dropping. 9/11 has reversed that. Survaillance, sky marshalls, and as well the crackdown of the financial streams is much sharper than before.

What if we pull out of Afghanistan and the Taliban regains control, allows Al Qaeda to set up its training camps again and continues to plot.
Well, this can happen. But what happens, when they plot in the tribal areas of Pakistan, or in Somalia, or in France or in the USA?

The terrorists don't need a major training camp to pursue attacks in the developed world. Plotting they can do everywhere in the world. But even when they needed them, they have plenty of options. The US can't invade all countries who harbour a couple of terrorists. For the terrorists moving from Afghanistan to another country is a burden, but doesn't finish them off. For the west to make a meaningful nationbuilding, which guarantees, that the terrorists can't come back, once the western troops pull out, is quite effortful.
I think even just invading the tribal areas of Pakistan will be very dangerous, and getting the Pakistani army to do it themselves is difficult and associated with risks, too.

Furthermore the costs of an attack like 9/11 as well in human live and pain, are not infinite higher than the cost of a war. If you can reduce the risk of an attack like 9/11 by 5% (which I very much doubt) by 'winning' in Afghanitan, but you have to sacrifice 5,000 soldiers and 50,000 seriously injured ones, it is not worth it.This doesn't include a single victim of 'the other side', which will go to the 100,000, until Afghanitan is won. You have to accept, that their live has some value, too, even when most of them are 'regular' targets, but of course there are a lot of purely civilian victims, too.
In terms of money, it is of course even more so. The war in Iraq (which could indicate how much effort is needed to secure Afganistan; just because there were really terrorists in Afghanistan doesn't mean it is easier to win in Afghanistan than in Iraq) costs probably each year more than 9/11.

except of course not acting like assholes
But that is a quite important point. And the west is losing the propaganda war in middle east. Not only the war in Iraq, but as well the war in Afghanistan are seen by a number of relevant people as occupation of a muslim country by unbelievers. This can increase the risk of a terror attack. The most idiotic thing is of course the security support of the Saudi monarchy. That probably is the single most important point. Second would be the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Both sides are strongly supported financially by the west. We could say, either you both make bold moves to peace, or we pull out our support. Or not, it is really only the second most important issue.

And finally, war is creating chaos. Chaos creates unpredictable outcomes. So far in the argumentation it is assumed, that Afghanistan is won, if the US gov is just determined enough and providing sufficient resources. That may be a flawed assumption. There can happen unpredictable things, which could prevent the US from winning in Afghanistan, even when fully determined.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 10:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

Was the Bush administration at fault for 9/11? Let me rephrase: did the administration contribute to the non-detection of the terrorists? From what I have read, it is very likely that the administration was sleeping on the job, but I don't believe it can be directly blamed. There is no way to be certain that the terrorists would have been detected/halted if the democrats were in charge. Obviously, things have improved, but I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about our capability to prevent a new, innovative attack. We need to keep the terrorists on the run and off-balance.

You are mistaken, the terrorists do need safe havens to train, recruit and plot. The US doesn't need to invade every country where terrorists establish cells if the local government is cooperative and vigilant in repressing them and keeping them on the run. It just makes their activities difficult and provides opportunities to disrupt their plans and activities. The problem with Afghanistan was that it had become a safe haven and the local government/regime not only tolerated but supported al-Qaeda. Yes, the tribal areas of Pakistan are a problem, and that is why the US Govt spends so much time in Pakistan working with the Govt.on this issue. Somalia and other lawless areas are also a problem but no to the extent Taliban led Afghanistan had become.

Not acting like assholes. I couldn't agree with you more.

War and chaos. Again, I agree. War is a horrible solution should be the last resort. I just don't know what else can be done about Afghanistan. We need to maximize peaceful solution there so the people choose an alternative to repressive, terrorist supporting regimes. The problem is that these "regimes" don't have our same values about war and peace.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Sep 9th, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

Comment responses

We need to maximize peaceful solution there so the people choose an alternative to repressive, terrorist supporting regimes. The problem is that these "regimes" don't have our same values about war and peace.

oh, please... some scare quotes would be nice!

they have warlord values and we don't, they're for sale to the highest bidder and we aren't?

they have shitty hardware and kill indiscriminately, we have the best hardware and a lot of it is full of sand and broken, and we do a lot of 'collateral damage'.

afghanis have some strong ideas about honour, and so do the marines and special forces, just very different.

they live in one of the poorest countries on earth, and are defending it from outsiders. even if they want to have terror camps, which i deplore, we have to go upriver and apologise for our meddling, and really go for the hearts and minds that way, balance out the past, while winning their gratitude...NOT their subservience...i have been in afghanistan, and they are the proudest people on earth, they will never give up.

meanwhile trying to bomb them into the stone age (where they know a thing or two about survival we've long forgotten), just hardens their resolve, sharpens their wile, and compounds their already low opinion of us.

they took cia money to fight the russians back, i'm sure they were not naive about the quid pro quo, but they will not lay down and roll over till the last one is dead, and we cannot afford on any level to keep looking like rich, murderous bullies without creating two terrorists for every clusterbomb, raised from birth to think about bringing down the western Great Satan as prime raison d'etre.

but i forgot, terrorists are the new commies, makes everything so much simpler, look how b-a-a-ad they are, that must mean we must be wearing the white hats.

with all due respect gringo, 'our' values about war and peace are sadly very similar, however seen through the rest of the world's eyes, and yes they are looking very hard, they (the taliban, al quaida) seem like the underdogs, taking money from bin laden and using it to protect islamic lands from heathen infidels, just as we try to stop islamofascists from crashing planes into skyscrapers.

i wish there were more differences...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 08:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

Yes, you are correct. I wrote that last statement (about values) in haste without thinking about the effect/meaning. My intent was to address the Taliban and its support for al Qaeda, and to critize al Qaeda's tactics as being contrary to the laws of war. The US has come under a lot of criticism for violations of the laws of war, and rightfully so. However, the Taliban and al Qaeda don't get much credit for their on-going violations of the same.

I don't agree that we should apologize for meddling with thier terrorist camps.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (4.00 / 3)

But what if, (as long as we are playing with people's lives) despite our best efforts, something else like 9/11 or worse happens?

You mean like

Europe becoming a suitable habitat for the malaria mosquito?
A major coastal city being wiped out by natural disasters in a nominally first world country?
A million or so people incarcerated in nominally first world countries for trivial non-violent crimes?

Terrorism Is Not An Issue.

And the funny thing is that I conclude this based on largely the same line of argument that you use to justify making it an issue: It is so ridiculously easy to make a major kaboom somewhere in a Western(TM) society where it will hurt badly. If there were slavering hordes of terrorists out there whose highest ambition in life were to make the lives of Western(TM) citizens and/or countries difficult, stuff would blow up every other month. It doesn't, so there aren't.

The Danish resistance during the War (which wasn't particularly impressive) managed to blow up more stuff in Denmark over two years than Al Qaeda's goons have managed throughout Europe since the founding of the organisation.

Can we please stop being scared now?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 0)

Good points. BTW, I not scared; otherwise I wouldn't be living Mexico's latest kidnapping and murder kingdom. However, that doesn't mean I take kidnapping, global warming, repressive governments, exploitation of the poor or any other man made scourge lightly. As far as I'm concerned they are all issues that have to be dealt with. Terrorists are an issue, but not the most pressing one at the moment.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 04:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first communism, then talibanism (none / 1)

"They" can do a 9/11 every month and they still wouldn't kill more people than the failure to provide adequate influenza vaccination to the at-risk parts of the American population. And let's not even start on all the people in third-world countries who are killed by a lack of readily available influenza vaccine programs - a lack that is in no small part a result of IMF (read: US State Department) and WTO (read: Bruxelles and State Department) policy and general European colonial mismanagement.

European and American governments wanting to get back at people who kill European and American citizens is all well and good, but it rings decidedly hollow when those same governments are unwilling to spend a small fraction of the effort to solve eminently solvable problems that kill far more people, but don't allow one to flood the airwaves with pictures of tanks, cruise missiles and fighter jets (or phosphor bomb a city or two in the service of Halliburton...).

As an aside, it is not the case that the Iraqi people has "turned away Al Qaeda," because Al Qaeda was never there in the first place and never established an operational command structure there, as far as anybody has been able to tell. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a local militia who wanted a name that sounds big and scary. We've undoubtedly got gangs in Copenhagen that call themselves "Al Qaeda in Denmark" - heck, they may even think of themselves as Fedayeen. But I can pretty much guarantee you that there are no genuine (active) Al Qaeda operatives in Copenhagen.

(The city is so full of utterly unprotected sabotage targets that any reasonably determined terrorist with a multiple-digit IQ could blow some shit up in a pretty spectacular way with less than a month of preparation. If there were active professional terrorists in Copenhagen, something would be a smoking crater right now...)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And indeed, many revolted actively against the ... (4.00 / 8)

... war, as documented in "Sir! No Sir!" (Wikipedia)

Mind you, just saying cause there are no Americans around.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 06:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most Americans who fought in Vietnam (none / 1)

I don't think that's actually correct. About 1/3 of them were drafted.

by asdf on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 09:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are correct (none / 1)

I guess it just FEELS like most of them were drafted.

More's the shame, then.

Then again, propaganda works wonders.

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor (myleftwing@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 09:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most Americans who fought in Vietnam (4.00 / 8)

A fair amount of those two/thirds that enlisted did so knowing that they would be drafted soon enough and by enlisting had some options that draftees didn't have.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

by NearlyNormal on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 01:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most Americans who fought in Vietnam (none / 0)

I was about to make that point. For many, like myself, my brother, and everyone else I knew for that matter, there really was no choice. Either enlist, try for officer status or get drafted. The joke in college was "A, B, C, D, Nam." I graduated, then went to Nam.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Sep 8th, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to be read by Americans!!!! | 118 comments (118 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Ireland 13 South Africa 8

UNGA: West Censors the South and East

EU VDL State of the Union -- Managing Decay

Rugby World Cup 2023 Week 1 review

Reactionary Visions and eNtiTiES

Sovereignty 2040

Recent Diaries

United Nations In Stalemate Position

Biden's Headache in Middle East: Israel

EU as Client State of Joe's America

Canada's Trudeau Honoring an Ukrainian Nazi Collaborator

Ireland 13 South Africa 8

UNGA: West Censors the South and East

A Tale by Benjamin Franklin

Fail in Democracy Return to Authoritarianism

Yemen From Ceasefire to Peace Talks?

Huge Cost Proxy War of Choice

EU VDL State of the Union -- Managing Decay

Reactionary Visions and eNtiTiES

Top Military War Planning Under Joe Biden - Ukraine

Rugby World Cup 2023 Week 1 review

Joe's Fuck the EU -- Showdown

Modi G20 One Earth, One Family, One Future

Conflict In Syria's Deir Ezzor Province

Sovereignty 2040

Some September Food/Ag Events

September 2023

Occasional Series