Saturday, August 13, 2005

Like people without kids who have opinions on raising them

I've been geting some flack lately for my support of Operation Yellow Elephant. In particular, one former Marine chastized me for calling people a chickenhawk.
oh yea. one more thing. i never tell people about my service becouse i think it doesnt matter.i went in durring time of peace and only came close once to seeing action.even with just the thought of a fight i saw people shit in thier pants.war is somthing i dont want.but sometimes i think it cant be avoided.

i cant stand people who diss presdent bush for serving in the national guard. infact , i hated hearing my fellow marines diss the army or any other branch of the armed services. i think it is equaly weak to claim that a person who didnt serve has no right to comment on war or a political issue concerning it
Does one have to serve (or have relations who serve) to have an opinion about war? Of course not. But cheerleading for the war when one has no vested sacrifice in it seems a little, well, chickenhawkish. I honor your service, Marine (assuming at face value with no other proof that you are who you say you are and not the delusional troll others think you are... again, there's no denying my identity and background, it's all over the net for anyone to see), and take your opinion of the war more seriously because you've demonstrated a willingness to fight one if necessary. For some reason, I take teachers' opinions on education, parents' opinions on childrearing, and scientists' opinions on evolution more seriously also.

Regardless, I still think you're wrong about this war. We were led into this war under false pretenses; the greatest crime a president can commit. Sending soldiers to battle is the most compelling decision a nation must make. Had we been exhorted to "liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam by torturing them in the same prisons in which Saddam tortured them and making their infrastructure worse" or "democratize the Middle East by blowing the shit out of it" before we sent troops in, we as a nation could have decided whether that lofty goal was worth 1,847 lives and thousands of missing limbs. Of course, if we're going to set that precedent of being World Police and taking down oppressive murderous dictators, people might take it more seriously if we weren't always somehow coincidentally taking down only the oppressive murderous dictators sitting on the world's largest oil reserves.

But we were lied to, bamboozled, hoodwinked to get into this war. "They'll greet us as liberators." "The country can finance its own reconstruction." "Shouldn't take longer than six months." "Mission Accomplished." "Saddam's got aerial drones that will spray anthrax on us." "We can't wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." "Aluminum tubes for nuclear production." "Yellowcake from Niger." I don't like it when my president lies about blowjobs. I like it less when he lies about something that really matters.

Don't give me that "Bush didn't lie, he made a mistake" bullshit, either. There's more than enough credible, nonpartisan evidence to show that the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy". The PNAC had been lusting after Iraq since 1998. Immediately after 9/11 Rumsfeld was itching to bomb Iraq "because that's where the good targets are." Plenty of intelligence analysts on the ground and within the administration knew the fight was with Afghanistan and the Taliban and that Saddam was a contained regional threat of no danger to the United States.

BushCo wanted war, period. They "sexed up" phony documents and specious intelligence to suit their needs, ignored experts and intelligence that didn't, and destroyed anyone who would dare point out the emperor was naked.

But even if we can accept that the ends justify the means, BushCo has done a execrable job managing the means. Sending under-armored soldiers into combat. Not planning for an insurgency. No exit plan. Violating the Powell Doctrine by not attacking with overwhelming force. Disbanding the Iraqi Army. Managing to just lose $8.8 BILLION dollars. Failing to secure 250,000 tons of munitions. Crafting a policy that mandates torture and abuse of prisoners yet failing to control the digital cameras documenting the torture and abuse.

I'm not some kind of vegan tree-hugging anti-war peacenik, either (not that there's anything wrong with that). If anything, I think we should be involved in more violence against brutal dictatorial regimes. Rwanda and the Sudan come to mind, but we seem to be allergic to intervention in Africa. I'm no pollyanna who thinks we can always just talk things out. Sometimes an ass-kicking is necessary and justified. But if you're going to do it, you must be honest with the people, you must do your homework, and you must make your goals and objectives crystal clear.

Instead we get platitudes. "They hate us for our freedom." Who's this "they", and why don't they hate Sweden, Canada, and India? "We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" as if "they" can't do both. We're fighting a global war on a tactic -- it's awfully hard to tell when you've defeated a noun.

The saddest thing is, that like Vietnam, eventually the people will grow weary of the death and the never-ending, always-shifting rationales, and we will pull out. The Middle East in general and Iraq in particular will decend into chaos and civil war (and that Iraqi civil war was inevitable whether we invaded or not.) Our oil supplies will be severely restricted and our economy will suffer greatly. And like Vietnam, righties like you will blame the anti-war movement for not "staying the course" rather than recognizing the war was a flawed gambit based on deception that never ever could have achieved its multiple stated goals.


At 13 August, 2005 20:45, Blogger moderate said...

Well, I'm a Marine who did see combat...1966-67 in Vietnam...and my fellow Marine and I disagree strongly. While "commenting" on anything is certainly within our rights, I resent the hell out of chickenshits who wouldn't think of serving or having their children serve, promoting war for others to fight or...worse, maligning those who have experienced the effects of war firsthand.

At 13 August, 2005 22:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a retired Corpsman Navy/Coast Guard and while not conflict I was in Haiti and a few other ops with migrants and let me say that telling people they being sent back to wherever does not make them peaceful and happy. And I agree with every word written. I also am sick to death of those repug and others who refuse to serve yet talk a good game and wave the flag like a shield of their chickenshit ways.
I also am not a "peacenik" and yes we need to kick ass at times. But before Iraq we needed to have finished the first mission, getting Osama!

At 14 August, 2005 02:17, Anonymous Captain Obvious said...

*cough* Anyone 'round here noticed that the military is overwhelmingly Republican voting?

...just sayin'

At 14 August, 2005 07:15, Blogger merlallen said...

That will probably be changing soon, capn. obvious

At 14 August, 2005 07:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and it's one two three
what are we fighin for
don't ask me i don't give a damn
next stop is iraqanam

with a nod to country joe

At 14 August, 2005 10:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FORMER MARINE? What a FUCKING CHICKENHAWK, he should still be a fucking marine and be out killing fucking brown people for the fucking empire

At 14 August, 2005 11:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey! I got this great idea for us liberals! We should start a blog that makes fun of republicans who support the war but don't fight in it! Yeah, we could write articles and philosophize about stuff we don't actually know about. And then, after a long hard day at the computer screen us liberals can pat ourselves on the back and jack off under the false belief that we are actually making a diiference!

And now like all liberals I recite the CREED! Empire empire empire empire oil oil oil!

At 14 August, 2005 11:17, Blogger Mazzy said...

Don't you have an "America we support you freedom" rally to attend?

If we stay the course 'till there's no course to stay
And insurgents get tired of bombing us away
Then we're bound to win the war someday.

At 14 August, 2005 13:01, Blogger Joe Visionary said...

Sidestepping the "I served ...' issue for a moment, if even half of the Captain's observations on dubya's comments and actions are true, that is probably enough to qualify as a breach of faith.

Do Republicans feel that way?

At 14 August, 2005 15:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

rally for empire and killing sand niggers!

At 14 August, 2005 15:36, Blogger Karl said...

capt. obvious-

A significant proportion of our military supports one of our political parties (the Republicans).

That does not, at all, mean that a significant proportion of Republicans are personally involved with our military.

Operation Yellow Elephant focuses on encouraging Our President's strongest supporters (otherwise eligible) to consider serving, personally.

And if they decide not to, we ask them why.


At 14 August, 2005 16:10, Anonymous doe said...

Thanks a lot, young yellow ribbon magnet Republicans.

Thanks to your mothers who sign opt-out forms so military recruiters can't contact you.

Thanks to your "higher priorities."

Thanks to the boils on your butts.

Thanks to your "It isn't for our kind of people" role models.

Thanks to your ball games, your bake sales and your beer swigging.

Thanks to your keyboard war of ideas.

Thanks to your half-hearted support of the winning team.

Thanks to you, our Commander in Chief can't get the job done.

"The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad."

Thanks for nothing.

At 14 August, 2005 19:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're welcome.

At 14 August, 2005 21:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush. He's quite a leader... can't get his own two daughters to sign up for this important and VITAL cause.

At 14 August, 2005 23:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

fucking facists wont let white girls go to combat

At 14 August, 2005 23:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for the "marine," i retired after 22 years in the Air Force as a major, serving as a squadron commander and several joint service billets---if things are going as well as we are told, then ask yourself why virtually every general who led troops into Afghanistan and Iraq shortly afterwards retired--"retirement" is a way that generals show the President or SecDef that they don't agree with their decisions-a notable exception was the marine (yes marine) general who tore into the secdef for taking so long to upgrade the body armor (estimations up to another year) and no, i will not say what present body armor won't protect against-- Also the 18- no now closer to 1900 dead now are those considered combat related--those that are killed by "friendly fire" or running their tank into a river because they are exhausted are not counted in this number-they are considered accidents--kind of like collateral damage. I support our troops, they are the best in the world--they just need the leadership they deserve.

At 15 August, 2005 12:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

those generals are pussies for resigning but not saying anything but why should we give the facist armies armor? they dont give it to the brown people


Post a Comment

<< Home