Peace in the Middle East

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Let me ask you this, if somebody told you to charge a hill with a machine-gun on it mowing down people would you run up the hill? Or what would your first response be? If you leave out the head-job part you don't get a good trooper, you try to pretend to understand the military a great bit. True, they don't deserve to die but keep in mind how much people signed up just to go to Iraq.

---

Well, I'm not a soldier. I don't claim to be. Nor do I pretend to understand the military as much as just warfare in general. However, I refuse to just accept your explanation that we should just shrug off the deaths of soldiers by simply saying; "Well, they knew the risks." So do policemen, but when one of them dies we all go apeshit and act surprised. Why? Because even if the danger of death is a part of one's occupation it doesn't mean they need to or should die.

I'm more than happy that our soldiers are motivated and want to fight, but we need to manage that enthuiasm better. The US Army is not an occupation force, that is not what it's designed for and that's why it isn't any good at it. We need new thinking in the military or better yet a more viable international solution to these 'nation-building' projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

You don't understand it, it's a mindset you have to have before you even go in. Stop talking shit you don't know about.

---

Perhaps there are aspects of it we can never understand, but to just say we're completely off-base because of the way we feel when we see the obvious effect shows you're blinded by your alligances and want nothing to do with a rational discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

So you're saying his responce is a cop out?

---

I'm saying people who aren't in the business of providing answers shouldn't say, "we need to realize there is a better way..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I like people who think any answer, even wrong or unqualified answer is better than no answer at all. Really. I do. Really....

---

Wrong answer?

This whole thread is a testament how Bush's policies (whatever their obvious, avoidable faults) are working.

(ADDED)
I came off a bit caustic and I'd just like to sum up: constructive criticism is a wonderful thing.

None of us like it when we're responsible for something and someone else (a coworker, relative, friend, whatever) comes along and tells us how we're doing it ALL WRONG.

So we ask them, "Ok. What should I do differently?"

"I dunno."

Thanks, Team Player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Well, I'm not a soldier. I don't claim to be. Nor do I pretend to understand the military as much as just warfare in general. However, I refuse to just accept your explanation that we should just shrug off the deaths of soldiers by simply saying; "Well, they knew the risks." So do policemen, but when one of them dies we all go apeshit and act surprised. Why? Because even if the danger of death is a part of one's occupation it doesn't mean they need to or should die.

I'm more than happy that our soldiers are motivated and want to fight, but we need to manage that enthuiasm better. The US Army is not an occupation force, that is not what it's designed for and that's why it isn't any good at it. We need new thinking in the military or better yet a more viable international solution to these 'nation-building' projects.




Perhaps there are aspects of it we can never understand, but to just say we're completely off-base because of the way we feel when we see the obvious effect shows you're blinded by your alligances and want nothing to do with a rational discussion.

---

Don't get me wrong g0zen, perhaps I did come off a little more "harsh" then I intended but it seems everytime US personal gets killed everyone cries like a bitch and acts like a busfull of school children just died. Does it occur to you that this war is fueled by the willingness of the soldiers because they want to go to Iraq? You know how much of the people are more then willing to kill some "sand nigger haggi's".

The US Army (as much as I hate the Army) is also the best occupational force on the entire planet.

I don't want you guys to view it as "you're a bunch of fucking idiots and you don't know what you're talking about" but you need to remember why a lot of people join the military in the first place, it's not just about "patriotism and defending your nation". These are rough and violent men for the most part.

The whole thread is a testament to how one action set into course other actions which then show signs of improvment in the middle east. I have my doubts that these events were in the playbook (but good thing they're happening anyway) and I don't think you or anyone can blame me. Thats more of a so what thing - my last point was this:

You're responsible (we'll assume) for something and you take to task at doing it. But this something is experimental surgery, and you get to work based entirely on pretence, intuition and reckless abandon. A friend, reletive, co-worker, diplomat comes by and says, " hey... thats probably not the way that works!"
You get pissed, and then when somehow the surgery is turning up signs of sucess you say, "I meant to do that all along."

Or maybe it's not like that. A shot in the dark isn't always better than not shooting. It wasn't do or die. I mean, I could clever-up some idea for peace in the middle east based entirely on what I think is right (and not what I know is right, because "knowing" all of these things is a luxury mainly for stubborn ignoramuses) and a lot of people would tell me, "Thats stupid, thats going to make things worse. You're writing the terrorists handbook/appeaseing the terroristis," etcetera.

I guess the mindset of, "at least we did something, and NOW look at it! How's 'bout that!" is comforting (and again, the results are wholy favorable, though questionable in some circumstances as to wether or not the effect is resultant of our cause). But it still seems like, efficitvely, dumb luck. I don't mind being wrong if thats not the case though. Right or wrong, the end result matters (unless the means to that end are tragic, not to say that this is the case here).

It doesn't help that Bush's answer wasn't initially one for the current question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

it still seems like, efficitvely, dumb luck. I don't mind being wrong if thats not the case though.

---

What is currently happening in the M.E. is precisely what the neocons predicted would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

The US Army (as much as I hate the Army) is also the best occupational force on the entire planet.

---

And yet it's still horrible at it. The experts have said as much. I can provide links if you don't believe me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I don't want you guys to view it as "you're a bunch of fucking idiots and you don't know what you're talking about" but you need to remember why a lot of people join the military in the first place, it's not just about "patriotism and defending your nation". These are rough and violent men for the most part.

---

I think you might be overgeneralizing as much as we are. I've always thought most youth join the military because it's a ticket to an education, or atleast some direction when nothing else seems viable out of high school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

What is currently happening in the M.E. is precisely what the neocons predicted would happen.

---

Far from it. You, like most on the right, are making mountains out of molehills. Yes, these are positive steps. No, they don't mean the war is won and the Middle East is now just as safe as downtown Boise. In fact, I would submit that at this most crucial time we should focus on fostering what have so that it can develop into something more. Because right now all we have is some bare bones possibilities, some that may only lead to more bloodshed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

It doesn't help that Bush's answer wasn't initially one for the current question.

---

Wait, Bush answered a question?

Since when.


Seriously Tracer is on the ball. Big time. I wish I could be as practical right now.

A younger Yawa might have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meach

What is currently happening in the M.E. is precisely what the neocons predicted would happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Far from it.

---

Really? :rolleyes:

Jerusalem Post: It was Wolfowitz who led a small group of neo-conservative thinkers in developing a rationale for the war...and that regime change in Iraq could help pave the way for Middle East peace.

From Reason mag's review of Present Dangers: To wit, America could, indeed should, actively spread its values and seek regime changes in the states of its foes, real and potential. (The Neocons) clearly hope that this foreign policy will reinforce an international order that secures and advances American interests while simultaneously inhibiting the emergence of any future dangers. They also believe that their vision will restore a sense of moral purpose to the country's foreign policy. Such a policy would build on a broad notion of the "national interest," one that harks back to what they believe is an American tradition of honor, greatness, and the fulfillment of our liberal values abroad.

Review of Present Dangers: "Warlike intervention by civilized powers would contribute directly to the peace of the world." (Teddy Roosevelt) Quoted by the neocons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Really? :rolleyes:

---

I wasn't debating it was their plan, I'm saying that what they've 'planned' hasn't nearly come to pass yet. Of course, you'd know this if you'd actually read the rest of my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

And yet it's still horrible at it. The experts have said as much. I can provide links if you don't believe me.

---

Oh, I believe you without a doubt. The point is though that there is really no good "occupational" force. We're in a heavy guerilla enviorment, put the French or Russians in there and see what happens to them. I would also like to add that even though it's completely against Marine doctrine the US Marines do a better job of occupation then the Army, however it's not what they're meant for in the slightest.