"Hate Speech" or the Truth?

Local Fighters Usually Win
By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet
Posted on August 16, 2005, Printed on August 23, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/24166/
This week's phrase is: ''those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

I know the great Spanish philosopher George Santayana penned it in his Life of Reason, but I'm nominating it for Orwell's dust bin anyway.

Though it contains a nugget of truth, the phrase generates more heat than light, and is therefore not conducive to constructive conversation.

In fact, whenever you hear someone use the Santayana-line, your lie detector should go off like a smoke alarm over a stove of burning bacon.

What the phrase has come to mean is: those who don't agree with my narrow understanding of history are condemned.

I can't tell you how many Internet discussions I've read where a self-declared ''realist'' attempts to rationalize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, offering the canard about how ''appeasement'' doesn't work, Neville Chamberlain, yadda, yadda, yadda. And just to put a boy-are-you-historically-ignorant! cherry on top, histrionic hawks hit you with the ''those who forget the past'' insult.

Next time that happens, counter with something else Santayana wrote: ''History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten.''

Now consider the tragic irony of hawks who attempt to defend the Bush doctrine of eternal preventive warfare using military history.

Get yourself a copy of Gwynne Dyer's book ''Future: Tense, The Coming World Order,'' and you'll see what I mean. The former Royal Military Academy professor and now international columnist points out how misled many Americans are in thinking the Bush administration is engaged in a ''war on terror.''

A truth ''that has been largely forgotten in the post-9/11 frenzy is that terrorism is a technique, not an ideology or a country. It is a technique that any group can pick up and use, without distinction of ideology, creed, or cause, and the people wielding it could as easily be fanatical anti-government Americans, Troskyists Germans, (or) Islamist Arabs.''

What neo-con policy planners are actually doing is ''waging a struggle solely against the particular brand of Islamist terrorists who attack American targets,'' Dyer observes.

Think about a worse-case terrorist attack scenario - detonation of a nuclear device in America.

Dyer argues that such fear-mongering ''failed to impress people who remembered that we lived for 40 years before 1990 with the entirely credible threat of thousands of nuclear weapons exploding simultaneously over every city in the entire industrialized world.

''If terrorists were someday to get their hands on a nuclear device and explode it in some unfortunate city, it would be a disaster, certainly - but a disaster...magnitudes smaller than a real nuclear war.''

And don't be fooled by ''realists'' who claim to know the past and insist they've learned the ''lessons of Vietnam.''

We're fighting ''terrorists'' in Iraq, they say. No, we're fighting nationalists who use low-tech terror techniques because they're up against a vastly superior military.

And what about the history Dyer is referring to? ''In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win. The Dutch learned that lesson in Indonesia, the French in Vietnam and Algeria, the British in Kenya and Cyprus, and the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique.

''The United States went through the same learning process in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan... The fighting may go on for years (and) the better equipped foreigners will win almost all the battles...but there is an endless supply of locals...the guerrillas are never going to quit and go home because they already are home. And it makes no difference how noble the foreigners think their motives are; only the opinion of the locals count.''

If historically-selective neo-cons steering the ship at present are right about being condemned by forgetfulness, we're all in trouble.

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.


http://www.alternet.org/story/24166/
 
Tigger_Magic said:
I have a life and priorities outside the DIS.

Your mischaracterizations aside... the only answer / "solution" offered has been to set a timetable to withdraw. That's not a solution; it's acquiescence. To borrow from one of Ann Coulter's recent columns, it's not a matter of saying "Let's Roll!", it's saying "Let's roll over!" The desire of some to cut & run from Iraq makes the French look positively heroic in comparison.

Just to throw some cyber-fuel onto the "burning question", what I would do differently:

1) Replace SecDef Rumsfeld. He's served the President well, but it's time to find someone who can better manage the politics of war. I think Mr. Rumsfeld has lost a lot of credibility with Americans and with the military.

2) Increase troop levels in Iraq by any means possible -- including instituting a temporary draft. We are not going to win (if that's even the goal anymore) without overwhelming force.

3) Let the generals on the field prosecute the war without the arm-chair quarterbacking and second-guessing from the gov't. If the goal is to win and secure freedom for Iraq, then give them the ability to do that.

3) Seal Iraq's borders with Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. The military has to cut off the infiltration of foreign insurgents and supplies to insurgents.

4) Target & destroy insurgent camps in Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia. We have the technology to discover and pinpoint these places. They should be taken out immediately. We should make the "shock and awe" of the Iraq invasion look like some 4th of July fireworks.

5) Institute a military draft in Iraq. All civilians would be required to serve in the Iraqi Army for 1 to 2 years, learning how to defend their country. Ramp up the military training in Iraq. Begin deploying the Iraqi Army to supplement civilian police forces throughout Iraq. Increase their responsibility for safeguarding Iraq on a regular schedule.

6) Rebuild the infrastructure faster. I honestly have no idea how to do this, but I am sure there are more companies who would be interested in doing this if security were better guaranteed.

7) Continue to assist Iraq in structuring it's new government, writing its Constitution and instituting that gov't. so that it is stable and secure.

Once these are accomplished, then set a timetable for withdrawal.

So in a nut shell your solution is to expand the number of countries that the US invades and to institute a draft. That'll go over real big. And as a source of inspiration you cite Ann Coulter? :rotfl:

Ann Coulter?!?! :rotfl:

Oh my Lord! :rotfl2:
 
peachgirl said:
I'll take your husband and uncle and raise you a father, 2 uncles and a grandfather(not Vietnam on gramps, will WWII do?) and they all agree with Hagel. Looks like it's 4 to 2, I win!

With all due respect to all our family members, none of them have the power that a Senator does, nor do their opinions have quite the same impact as it does when that Senator, a member of the President's own party comes out against him.



Actually Joe, if you'd bother to read before you post, it isn't I who has a thing for Vietnam. It was a Republican Senator who made the comparisons...wanna trash him?




And I just played mine! :sunny: I just love card games, don't you?;)

Oh look...Peachgirl won! That must make you feel so happy...considering your party keeps on losing. BTW - I'll let you *think* you won - but you actually lost that too.

BUt I guess if peachgirl has 4 family members that feel this way - than that MUST be how the majority of VETS feel. :rolleyes:
 
transparant said:
BUt I guess if peachgirl has 4 family members that feel this way - than that MUST be how the majority of VETS feel. :rolleyes:

The level of hypocrisy is astounding. If you'll recall it was you and Dawn that started dragging relatives out of your hip pockets as some kind of proof that the REPUBLICAN senator was wrong and that their opinions were indicitive of what other vets believed.


I made it quite clear I didn't agree.

So, next time you want to post simply to be insulting and sarcastic, why not try grabbing on to something that actually exists, rather than just pulling it out of your ***.
 

Lebjwb said:
So in a nut shell your solution is to expand the number of countries that the US invades and to institute a draft. That'll go over real big. And as a source of inspiration you cite Ann Coulter? :rotfl:

Ann Coulter?!?! :rotfl:

Oh my Lord! :rotfl2:
When you can't debate, obfuscate! :rotfl2:
 
2) Increase troop levels in Iraq by any means possible -- including instituting a temporary draft. We are not going to win (if that's even the goal anymore) without overwhelming force.

I've said for quite some time that I favor a draft.

It's the best way I know of to put an end to this war. It's about time the right wingers pony up a few of their best and brightest for the glorious cause. It sickens me that they are so willing to hand over the lives of young Americans, who for the most part, come from lower income, disadvantaged families.

Make the draft iron clad and escape proof. Set an age limit and no exemptions. You'll see the upper crust neo-cons changing their tune so fast your head will spin when it's their precious sons and daughters dying.
 
peachgirl said:
I've said for quite some time that I favor a draft.

It's the best way I know of to put an end to this war. It's about time the right wingers pony up a few of their best and brightest for the glorious cause. It sickens me that they are so willing to hand over the lives of young Americans, who for the most part, come from lower income, disadvantaged families.

Make the draft iron clad and escape proof. Set an age limit and no exemptions. You'll see the upper crust neo-cons changing their tune so fast your head will spin when it's their precious sons and daughters dying.
That's a broad brush you paint with. It's rather doubtful that only children of left-wing liberals and moderates are filling the ranks of the armed forces today. You'd probably find at least an equal number of individuals who would call themselves conservatives volunteering.
 
It's rather doubtful that only children of left-wing liberals and moderates are filling the ranks of the armed forces today.

Can you point out to me where I said that the military ranks are filled with left wing libs and moderates?

Are you saying that lower income, disadvantaged families are mostly liberal and moderate?

That's a pretty broad brush you paint with...the hypocrisy continues.
 
Lebjwb said:
So in a nut shell your solution is to expand the number of countries that the US invades and to institute a draft. That'll go over real big. And as a source of inspiration you cite Ann Coulter? :rotfl:

Ann Coulter?!?! :rotfl:

Oh my Lord! :rotfl2:

Can we invade Australia next? :rotfl: The guys are so hot from there. I'm sure that Ann Coulter would approve. She tries to flaunt her sexuality so much with her bleach-blonde hair and her "take me you devil conservative" attitude! :rotfl:
 
I found the numbers in this article to be quite against what's been stated lately on this thread. It has been edited by me to eliminate the useless rhetoric.


THE REAL IRAQ NEWS

By RALPH PETERS

August 23, 2005 --

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a few months?

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels.

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism than the editorial pages do.



* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft.

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30.



The young men and women who have been through the crucible of combat — often on repeated deployments — are hardly naive. Their education levels exceed the American average. And, as of Aug. 2, the Army had spent a 2005 total of only $347 million on Selective Re-enlistment Bonuses

Big bucks for risking your life? Not hardly. Only 60 percent of soldiers get any re-enlistment bonus. For the overwhelming number whose skills merit an extra incentive, bonuses runs between $6,000 and $12,400 per year of contracted service — per year of facing death, wounds, separation from family and uncertainty as to whether you'll ever see that family again.

A total of 643 soldiers with very special capabilities, from special operators to doctors, got an average payment of $57,000 — a fraction of what the private sector offers them for doing the same jobs at far less risk.

No, they don't do it for the money.

Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is "love." They would die for the man or woman serving beside them. They're risking their lives to save a broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.

As you read this, 500,000 soldiers are on active duty because they chose to serve their country. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Reservists and Guard members have been called into uniform. And they're all behaving as true soldiers do: Running toward the sound of the guns, not away from them.

We should be humbled by their choices, honored by their sacrifices, and proud of what they're fighting to achieve.
 
I'll tell you what. If Bush allows Iraq to install an Islamic state to replace the one we destroyed, I will get in line right behind the ant-Bushies. That will be the final disappointing straw.
 
With the GLARING exception of point #2, I agree.

1) Replace SecDef Rumsfeld. He's served the President well, but it's time to find someone who can better manage the politics of war. I think Mr. Rumsfeld has lost a lot of credibility with Americans and with the military.

2) Increase troop levels in Iraq by any means possible -- including instituting a temporary draft. We are not going to win (if that's even the goal anymore) without overwhelming force.

3) Let the generals on the field prosecute the war without the arm-chair quarterbacking and second-guessing from the gov't. If the goal is to win and secure freedom for Iraq, then give them the ability to do that.

3) Seal Iraq's borders with Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. The military has to cut off the infiltration of foreign insurgents and supplies to insurgents.

4) Target & destroy insurgent camps in Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia. We have the technology to discover and pinpoint these places. They should be taken out immediately. We should make the "shock and awe" of the Iraq invasion look like some 4th of July fireworks.

5) Institute a military draft in Iraq. All civilians would be required to serve in the Iraqi Army for 1 to 2 years, learning how to defend their country. Ramp up the military training in Iraq. Begin deploying the Iraqi Army to supplement civilian police forces throughout Iraq. Increase their responsibility for safeguarding Iraq on a regular schedule.

6) Rebuild the infrastructure faster. I honestly have no idea how to do this, but I am sure there are more companies who would be interested in doing this if security were better guaranteed.

7) Continue to assist Iraq in structuring it's new government, writing its Constitution and instituting that gov't. so that it is stable and secure.

Once these are accomplished, then set a timetable for withdrawal.
 
Tigger_Magic said:
That's a broad brush you paint with. It's rather doubtful that only children of left-wing liberals and moderates are filling the ranks of the armed forces today. You'd probably find at least an equal number of individuals who would call themselves conservatives volunteering.

I'm curious if anyone knows the socioeconomic status of those volunteering and being recruited. In my area there is a much higher number of volunteers who fall in the lower-middle class category and even higher numbers from the inner city where many live below the poverty level.

I don't think Peachgirl is saying that there aren't conservatives in the armed forces. She is saying that some of the most ardent supporters of the war, especially in the Bush administration, have avoided service and don't have children serving in the military. I know I don't see kids from the country club/Junior League volunteering to serve.
 
treesinger said:
I'll tell you what. If Bush allows Iraq to install an Islamic state to replace the one we destroyed, I will get in line right behind the ant-Bushies. That will be the final disappointing straw.

Isn't that exactly what they're doing with this new constitution they're attempting to get passed? It's my understanding that the sunni's are holding it up, but I don't know why anyone would expect that they would do anything else. It's an Islamic country and they want Islamic law.

This is exactly why I say what Bu$h is attempting to do will never work. Iraqi's , agree or disagree, don't want "our" kind of democracy and no amount of killing is going to change their minds.

Btw, your "numbers" regarding the military are from an op-ed piece, not accurate statistics from an unbiased source..simply something copied and pasted from the conservative thread where the poster feels safe and not likely to have her sources questioned.
 
swilphil said:
I'm curious if anyone knows the socioeconomic status of those volunteering and being recruited. In my area there is a much higher number of volunteers who fal in the lower-middle class category and even higher numbers from the inner city where many live below the poverty level. I don't see kids from the country club/Junior League volunteering to serve.
I'd be curious to hear the numbers as well. Unfortunately, there are many who live in socio-economically depressed areas that feel that their only way out is either carrying a football or signing up for a couple tours of duty in Iraq.

If we are to stay in Iraq, then I agree with Tigger_Magic and peachgirl (can't believe that could ever happen) and we need to institute a draft, if only to even our the burden between all economic classes.
 
swilphil said:
I don't think Peachgirl is saying that there aren't conservatives in the armed forces. She is saying that some of the most ardent supporters of the war, especially in the Bush administration, have avoided service and don't have children serving in the military.
I'd be curious to see the evidence that supports this assertion.
 
swilphil said:
I'm curious if anyone knows the socioeconomic status of those volunteering and being recruited. In my area there is a much higher number of volunteers who fall in the lower-middle class category and even higher numbers from the inner city where many live below the poverty level.

I haven't found pure statistical information on this yet, but one op-ed piece is just as good as another. This one states that it is using Dept of Defense stats though..


Enlistees in the military generally come from the lowest economic brackets and have consigned themselves to military service for the simple reason that they have few other options, a fact recruiters capitalize on to meet recruiting quotas.

According to a 2003 Department of Defense survey, most recruits come from homes where the average income is several thousand dollars lower than the national average. Evidently, the choice of risking one’s life for a living has become a burden borne exclusively by the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

An even more frightening disparity is evident in the ranks of the military: According to the Department of Defense, enlistees, who account for 86 percent of the active military service, come from consistently lower-income backgrounds than their officers. The recruits who take the most risk are inherently those with the least voice.

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=4287

Btw, it would be nice when posting articles to back one's opinion that the link be posted as well.
 
peachgirl said:
I've said for quite some time that I favor a draft.

It's the best way I know of to put an end to this war. It's about time the right wingers pony up a few of their best and brightest for the glorious cause. It sickens me that they are so willing to hand over the lives of young Americans, who for the most part, come from lower income, disadvantaged families.

Make the draft iron clad and escape proof. Set an age limit and no exemptions. You'll see the upper crust neo-cons changing their tune so fast your head will spin when it's their precious sons and daughters dying.

The terrorists will decide when the war is over. The war on terrorism will be going on for many years until the world unites against it and stops thinking its someone else's problem or that we can solve it by niceness and understanding and appeasement.

Sorry to hear that you are sick. You seem confused about the volunteer army and the dedication of those who serve. The vast majority of those who go are NOT going out of economic desperation.
 
Tigger_Magic said:
I'd be curious to see the evidence that supports this assertion.

And I'd be curious to see the evidence that supports the alternative argument.


Since you seem to believe that liberals are all poor, do you have stats to prove that?
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom