I was out last evening with a bunch of the spouse's old work buddies and we got to talking about the whole situation in Iraq. One person had an interesting suggestion, "If the Iraqi's want Civil War, why should we stop them? Let's declare victory, pull out the troops and let them have at it."
Now, given that we, US Taxpayers, have sponsored a fair amount of the devastation in the country, I think we are responsible for some of the clean up. But, then again, if they want Civil War, and it seems inevitable no matter when we get out troops out of harms way, then why not get our GIs home sooner rather than later.
In another striking thought, this person said, "Yeah, it's like we are giving the terrorists lots of practice bombing the crap out of the world's best military. That can't be good since they are getting better at it, not worse." Again, another case for bringing the troops home.
Well, we had our Civil War and our Country came out stronger and better for it (unless of course you ask some folks who still fly the rebel flag). Perhaps a Civil War might be good for Iraq. Not to mention safer for our troops.
But then again, maybe the war is more than just about "spreading freedom," and the capitalistic claws of Halliburton really don't want to relinquish the dollars that come with the clean up projects and oil revenue.
I wonder, how much do the American Taxpayers shell out to protect Halliburton contractors who are doing their jobs at 10 times the expense of the GIs. If this is what "spreading freedom," looks like, I am not so sure I want any more to do with it.
8 comments:
no matter what this administration claims, this is not a war for peace or safety or freedom...it is a war for profit, as so many are.
the hypocrisies of the bush admin are many, but their war "aims" and the reality just don't seem to be matching up.
I wouldn't advocate civil war so much though. Perhaps Iraq would be better served by splitting up, much as the balkans did. after all, Iraq is just an artificial construct created by the british. let them revert to their old territories and separate identities and see what happens then...
I like your blog, the layout, the content, the overall feel of it. I bookmarked you... I will check back pretty often to see whats new :-)
Between a dog and a lamp post
There is a long tradition in the desert of Arabia not to interfere in a fight between enemies. It consumes their resources, not yours. As long as the US does their fighting for them, the Arab will not fight. Give them credit for something.
Give US credit for nothing, for not knowing anything about Iraq before invading. No one hustles the East (or the Middle East). When you sit down at the table to play poker with an Arab you've lost when you take the chair. How else do these people survive in a hostile environment?
The problem is that Bush, like a lot of people, don't understand that there is no one right way to live. Spreading democracy is not the answer. What (sort of) works for us may not work for others.
Wars entered into for true idealist purposes stand the test of time. They are looked upon through the historical eye and seen as necessary and therefore honorable. WWII is an example. The Civil War is another.
Trying to "sell" a war idealistically when it isn't won't hold up under history's scrutiny. Iraq and Vietnam are both such wars.
I am not saying the people serving or having served in these conflicts aren't honorable. Indeed, they are are probably more so because they risk so much to prop America up when she is stumbling.
Between the 10 years of sanctions and the two wars, the Iraq infrastructure is in ruin. Leaving them to civil war is wholsale death to many innocent lives. We might as well line up and shoot their babies ourselves.
We made a significant portion of this mess. We have to stay the course. I just hope we lay the blame firmly at the feet of the President and impeach him for this besmirchment of our honor, and the wholesale destruction for profit of Iraq.
''Honorable'' person equals ''patsy''
Jet, ''stay the course'' is just Bush rhetoric. You're honorable, Bush is not. He's already shot you in the back, ''U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq. Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says.''
Windspike's friend said:
"Yeah, it's like we are giving the terrorists lots of practice bombing the crap out of the world's best military. That can't be good since they are getting better at it, not worse."
Thank your friend for bringing up one helluva point! Not sure how I feel about it, but it is most certainly food for thought.
Shedding the unreality
100% Clip:
ymatt Says:
You know, next time I make a decision at work that ends up being blatantly misinformed, I’m going to have to explain to my boss that I am in the process of “shedding my unreality”. I’ll sound proactive and goal-oriented rather than, you know, a fuck-up.
How do we let people get away with this kind of bullshit language?
Post a Comment