That's my point simply relabeling the bagging in which our food donations are shipped could make a huge difference in the perception of the US.
How does the West win the 'War on ******'?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
That's my point simply relabeling the bagging in which our food donations are shipped could make a huge difference in the perception of the US.
Noted ...
So your point is noted.
While I don't think the dislike of the US boils down to such and would make little difference, it's a move that doesn't take any additional effort.
So your point is noted.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
I think it's funny that Bush is just now asking for ideas on how to change the situation in Iraq! He was saying that if we can accomplish whatever it is we set out to do in Iraq and finish what we started over there, then we'd have an ally in the war on ******.
First off, NO ONE in Iraq likes the U.S.! They don't want us there and they blame us for what has happened to their country! I have to agree with them. We fucked that country up! It's getting worse day by day, and it will never get better till we leave. But we can't leave at this point. We can only stay and fight a losing battle!
First off, NO ONE in Iraq likes the U.S.! They don't want us there and they blame us for what has happened to their country! I have to agree with them. We fucked that country up! It's getting worse day by day, and it will never get better till we leave. But we can't leave at this point. We can only stay and fight a losing battle!
If there's one thing I've tried in all my "serious" board postings is to give a sense of history. As Santayana famously stated, "Those who
do not study history are doomed to repeat it."
As I see it, the US has two options.
Option a) Remove our occupying ***** from Iraq, and reasses our strategic policy as I outlined in a previous post. Consider the Algerian War of Independence on one extreme (not a good option admittedly but at this time I think we are looking at bad to worse options with the good ones having left the building a la Elvis)
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War_of_Independence
Option b) What seems to be the McCain plan, but his even seems a pussyfied version of what I expect really to be needed. A massive increase of troops the overthrow of the Iraqi government with the instillation of a merciless colonial government (think Dick Cheney but meaner). This is similar to what the US did in the Spanish American War to the Phillipines.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
War is ugly business.
"the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. With his ****** intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete." Sun Tzu's Art of War
Bush should take note...Osama did...albiet failing miserably...we've got all the guns...its sad really...
Bush should take note...Osama did...albiet failing miserably...we've got all the guns...its sad really...
Why is it, suddenly, a war that has to be won and not, as it has been for the past hundred years or so, a problem that has to be managed? Seriously?
If the terrorists have declared war, what made them do so? What is it that they want to achieve? Well, the first item on the agenda seems to be to get rid of those corrupt regimes that "the West" has installed in their countries and to be allowed to forge their own destiny.
Take Syria. A very evil contry, so evil that the US ships suspected "terrorists" there to have them ********, that has the audacity to question its borders aginst Lebanon. If we go back 100 years, there were no such borders there. They were put in place in the 1920s by the French in order to create a multiethnic colonial dominoin in which the French would be able to dominate by playing the ethnic groups against each other. Before that, it was all part of the Osman empire. Now, the Syrians, and some Lebaneese, ask themselves, why should they be bound by French colonial ambitions from the past century. Therefore they are terrorists.
The real reason for "The War on ******" is that whenever the arabs elect a government through democratic elections, the results are simply unacceptable. In Palestins the arabs elected Hamas, and in Lebanon any election according to democratic principles would put Hezbolla in power. In Algeria the result was an Islamic government, and that would also be the case in Egypt. Therefore the necessity to continue support to corrupt and despotic governments in the arab world at the same time as the region is scolded for not being democratic. This also generates the ****** that has to be fought in the name of democracy and freedom and whatever.
So, in essence, the "War of ******" cannot be won as it creates the very factors that cause it. So, what interest does the USA have in creating terrorism that then has to be managed?
If the terrorists have declared war, what made them do so? What is it that they want to achieve? Well, the first item on the agenda seems to be to get rid of those corrupt regimes that "the West" has installed in their countries and to be allowed to forge their own destiny.
Take Syria. A very evil contry, so evil that the US ships suspected "terrorists" there to have them ********, that has the audacity to question its borders aginst Lebanon. If we go back 100 years, there were no such borders there. They were put in place in the 1920s by the French in order to create a multiethnic colonial dominoin in which the French would be able to dominate by playing the ethnic groups against each other. Before that, it was all part of the Osman empire. Now, the Syrians, and some Lebaneese, ask themselves, why should they be bound by French colonial ambitions from the past century. Therefore they are terrorists.
The real reason for "The War on ******" is that whenever the arabs elect a government through democratic elections, the results are simply unacceptable. In Palestins the arabs elected Hamas, and in Lebanon any election according to democratic principles would put Hezbolla in power. In Algeria the result was an Islamic government, and that would also be the case in Egypt. Therefore the necessity to continue support to corrupt and despotic governments in the arab world at the same time as the region is scolded for not being democratic. This also generates the ****** that has to be fought in the name of democracy and freedom and whatever.
So, in essence, the "War of ******" cannot be won as it creates the very factors that cause it. So, what interest does the USA have in creating terrorism that then has to be managed?
Surrendering is not an option, see how fought the russian partisans back how they massacred some complete waffen ss divisions in WWII. Surrendering is not a sign of courage nor a sign of bravery or patriotism.
