|
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 05:54 PM by baby_mouse
America won't win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.
Why not?
You seem to have given these aging hippies quite a lot of power. This is one of the silliest parts of the RW prop-spinning machine, how does a hippy standing in a street with a sign affect America's military effectiveness? I don't see how a flowery shirt and long hair in Neo-Haight-Ashbury is going to get between a bullet and its "enemy combatant" target. Do peace and love vibes intersect the trajectory with some kind of impenetrable forcefield?
There's a lot of nonsense talked about "giving the enemy aid and succour", it's meaningless navel gazing. Unless the aging hippes are handing nukes to them I cannot see how the Iraqis are aided by war protests. Is their morale increasing through watching the *extensively* covered Stop the War campaign :eyes: on steam-powered cable TV?
Do you mean the troops, the very very very (allegedly) republican voting troops? They don't get to see it either! It'd be a pretty poor army (larger than the armies of the next 50 similarly technologically advanced nations combined, we're told) that'd miss a target because they're distracted by some hippy.
Considered it might be Rumsfeld's fault, have you? No? Didn't think so.
Sorry, dear, it's care in the community time.
Radicalized, the flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives. No matter what they rename themselves, however, their agenda hasn't changed.
Yes, it has, I'm afraid. The ones that didn't get shot in Kent state realised they were actually going to have to DO something. And they did, much to your chagrin.
They still want utopia
I think at this stage, darling, given that the alternative appears to be endless, purposeless bloodshed, you're not in much of a position to question any sort of Utopianist movement, as your position from elsewhere in your article, with NO real end apparently in mind, is "It'S US OR THEM! US OR THEM! AAARRRGH!" You don't even seem to know who "they" are. Al Qaida? Stop all this silly nucking about and get the intelligence services of the world onto them. These sorts of problems have to be solved *together*, dear. Invading Iraq wasn't really the wisest course. Was it? You can't just lay your terrorism problems at the doors of the families of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and say: "Well? are you US? Or are you THEM? HM?" and expect to win *anything*, regardless of how many hippies there are left, aging or otherwise.
and it wouldn't be worth mentioning except that their naiveté has aged into a persistent denial of reality that may have devastating consequences.
Ahhhhh. "Reality". That big, scary mechanical thing that decides our fates for us, particularly applicable in the case of the behaviour of Iraqi insurgents OH sorry terrorists OH sorry enemy combatants, what are they being called again?
The thing about reality is that you get to choose what happens in it, if you're human. Most human beings recognise this and make some sort of attempt to cooperate with each other.
You're really, really *sold* on this hippies=failure thing, aren't you?
The devastating consequences, my poor deluded dear, are already happening. But it ain't because of the "hippies".
"The avalanche has started and it is too late for the pebbles to vote" appears to be your position.
But the pebbles have voted. And not a huge number of the pebbles are wearing any sort of flowery *anything*.
For example, consider their continued belief that America's armed forces are neo-Nazi stormtroopers who delight in burning babies to further the aims of imperialistic corporations.
Well it's not really a "belief", is it?
Invading a country and taking over it's infrastructure to change it all around and make it into something you want *is* imperialism, by definition, are you denying that this has taken place? Are you in fact *denying* that the US armed forces are furthering the interests of imperialistic corporations?
Nobody else is. Not even your own government.
As for the baby burning, yes, this has in fact taken place. There was a war, you see. The question of whether or not the pilots dropping the bombs delight in this has been established already, by their own words, they do.
The rhetoric spouted by Certain Personnel nearer the start of the most recent Iraq War was, in fact, *indistinguishable* from Neo-Nazi rhetoric. Are we to believe you, or them?
You will note, I should add, that the left is pretty good at noticing the examples who DO fit your stereotype, however, you will find it difficult to note that the steroetype is applied across the board by the left to all military personnel. Unlike you and your reaction to the stereotypical hippies.
Such nonsense, now treated as legitimate by the left-leaning media, denigrates the patriotic values and sincerity of half the nation.
Wow! Suddenly the OTHER half of the US are all HIPPIES!
It undermines the war effort
How? :freak:
insults the dead and the survivors of battle and their families
Yeah. "Bring the troops home" was such a blow to their self-esteem. Cardboard turkeys at Thanksgiving and an AWOL president in a flight suit's way more flattering.
and supports the aims of the enemy
HOW??? :wtf: What are you TALKING about? Oh, I keep forgetting, it's the inside of your head. Of course, why didn't I see it? If you and people like you are aware of the existence of doubt about the outcome or legitimacy of the war, telepathic signals are transmitted to American troops ACROSS THE WORLD making them feel cheap and tainted. They take off their helmets and spliff up in despair. Iraqi death rates decline and the message of "Don't fuck with the US" is not heard. Scrawny brown folk think they might have some of their *own* ideas about their own land and their own people.
Given that the aims of "the enemy" (WHO is the enemy? Oh, yes! Al-Quaida! Well, get the intelligence services of th world onto them. These problems have to be solved *together*, my dear, unless you're talking about the Iraqis :wtf: in which case ---) appear to be getting your army out of their country, which these days appear to mesh pretty well with the aims of *your* country, GIVEN THE RESULT OF THE RECENT *VOTE* (oh yes, that pesky hippy democracy thing) supporting said aims seems a reasonable position.
The "aims of the enemy". Nice and vague, eh? the.... ENEMY.... oooh scary. Bunch a scrawny brown people. Better strip away as much reality as you CAN from those scrawny brown people, they don't really look hostile enough in a totally destroyed country with no electricty. Don't call them by name, don't mention the country, don't even let a hint of description enter the dialogue or those pesky voting sheeple will forget to think about... the... ENEMY. The bigger and scarier the big bad the ENEMY is, the *more macho America becomes!* YAY!
If the war had anything at all to do with any sort of objective America WOULD have won, but it didn't, it was about America losing its temper with some skinny kid so it could feel like it's got its balls back and that's IT. There are those on your side, petal, who have, in fact, said as much, with no trace of irony.
Translated into immigration or national defense policy, it is an invitation to the world to destroy our country.
Right, lets track back, the hippies think that the entire US military are a bunch of Nazi stormtroopers (err...) and that's an invitation for immigrants and skinny nations to take a pop at the States.
Hm. Hm.
Sorry, you've lost me there...
Yet, this Vietnam-era idée fixe about the military, despite 40-plus years of proof to the contrary, is understandable when analyzed in the context of the flower children's religious zealotry.
The, er, religious zealotry of not invading other countries for purely ideological reasons? Neatly translated, presumably, decades later, into not invading other countries for profit?
Wow! The fundamentalism! The EXTREMISM!
WHAT 40-plus years proof to the contrary?
Perhaps you mean the wars helmed by the Democrats?
To renounce their military fictions would mean facing bigger, more important truths: Marxism doesn't work. Love is not all you need.
You really are living in a time capsule, darling.
Western culture is worth defending because it protects freedom, tolerance and the greatest material good for the greatest number.
OMG! Well, this "hippy"(not) has seen the LIGHT. All these years I thought Western culture was worth DESTROYING because it protects freedom, tolerance (ha ha) and er... the greatest material good for the greatest number....( that last one's a bit...whiffy...)...!..apparently...
Where are you getting your ideas about what anybody on the left thinks *from*? Oh yes, the inside of your head.
Government can't solve every problem.
Now you've just gone off the charts. "Hippies" want GOVERNMENTS to solve everything? No, dear, "hippies" want governments to STOP SCREWING EVERYTHING UP.
(It's a matter of focus, you see. Governments cause big problems. Usually only they can clean up their own mess.)
The American taxpayer has no obligation to support the rest of the world's exploding population.
See above. Also, the world's exploding population is unlikely to continue to pay much attention to YOU if you don't pay any attention to THEM. Not forcing genetically modified sterile crops onto them so you get to profit off them when they're perfectly capable of growing their own crops might be a good start.
Without the military-industrial complex to blame for humanity's ills, the lefty loonies lose their basis for faith in a socialist utopia.
Ah, yes! The US military's defence of a non-existent socialist Utopia from a non-existent threat to it.
1. No "terrorist" gives a TOSS what your country does inside its own borders, it's YOUR COUNTRY. There is NO THREAT to the American (non-socialist non-Utopian) status quo from terrorists! The threat's internal!
2. It is NOT NECESSARY to kill tens of thousands of innocent people to intimidate terrorists (who will not be intimidated no matter WHAT you do, that is the nature of terrorism), who will respond to this "message" with glee! The appropriate way to deal with terrorists is to use the INTELLIGENCE SERVICES.
Terrorism is tortuous for them only because it forces them to pursue the political goals that will allow them to redistribute America's wealth by pulling the nation together and relying on the hated military for protection.
Okay. In English, shall we? Let's give this one a go.
You appear to be saying that terrorism is problematic to the left BECAUSE... it binds the public together... and facilitates redistribution of wealth.
Hm. Hm.
No, sorry, you've lost me there...
Oh, the unfairness of irony.
What irony? The irony of of a non-socialist, non-Utopian society being defended by a non-hated and undeserving military from an imaginary Iraqi threat? THAT irony? Not irony, as such, really, is it? More like Hideous Mistake.
Publishing construction info on nukes on a government website while engaged in a fruitlss war originally sold on the image of weapons of mass destruction, now that's PROPER Irony, that is.
Thus, lefty loonies deny that terrorists have declared war on America, while insisting that we can win the war through negotiation. They seem to believe the terrorists will spare them because they are nice.
Well, no, what the lefty loonies have been saying from the beginning is entirely different, and goes along these lines:
1. Terrorists have to be taken care of by intelligence services not the military because the military is for defending the nation against attacks from other military organisations. Terrorists cannot declare war (well perhaps they can SAY that they've declared war, but it doesn't mean anything) because terrorists are not nation states. You should read up a little on your International Law. (Not that you give a toss. Rule of Law is for Others, n'est pas?)
2. The lefty loonies have no interest in winning a war that serves no purpose and has no end, there are NO lefty loonies proposing WINNING the war through negotation. The position is that the war is unwinnable without unnacceptable cost *regardless* of negotiation. The war has to be STOPPED, not WON, because the war serves NO PURPOSE. (In fact, I don't think I've seen any discussion of "negotiation" from the left at ALL.)
3. Your final sentence is produced by your imagination. I suggest you discuss the topic with some *real* left wing people, and not imaginary ones.
The truth is that there is no way out of our modern warfare dilemmas.
Your country has no modern warfare dilemmas save those which it has created for itself. There IS a way out of your modern warfare dilemmas, but it's just a leetle bit trickier than bombing the scrawny bown people, which, I think, is the real reason you wish to continue with your modern warfaring. It consists of uncomfortable self-analysis and considering the possibility that not starting wars in the first place is probably the best way to avoid wars, as they are buggers to stop once they get started, and it's becoming clearer and clearer to a substantial proportion of your own countries populace that:
1. War is a mug's game generally,
2. Maybe... it's just YOU.
Is it possible to protect non-combatants, given modern weaponry in total war?
By not declaring war on their in the first place....yes.
Are people who make weapons innocent citizens of their warring governments, or integral non-uniformed soldiers and legitimate targets?
Easy.
A SOLDIER is a person who is in an ARMY. An innocent citizen is NOT a soldier because they are not in an ARMY.
Must we surrender our country to our enemies because our weapons are too terrible to use?
What you must do is stop declaring war on people who have no interest in war with you and after that has happened you will have no need to "surrender" your country to anyone, or use your terrible weapons. (Using your terrible weapons will only encourage other people to use their own terrible weapons on you, in the long run, and, in the end, you might have to surrender your country *because* you have used your terrible weapons.
Cosnidered that one? Hm?)
Whose life is more important: the 12-year-old Iraqi firing an Uzi or a soldier from Kentucky?
Well, shall we count the molecules? How about an aura reading?
Which is more sacred: a mosque hiding a weapons cache or a plane of tourists?
So true... I shall never forget the beautiful Easyjet ceremony that took me to Amsterdam. The checking in, the patting down, the wobbly 747 that felt and looked as if it had been pulled out of a shrink-wrapped six pack and placed disposably on the runway... The drunks, the plastic air hostess smiles... ah yes. Happy, spiritual times.
:wtf:
Do we want a military strong enough to protect our homeland? Are we willing to pay the price of survival?
IT'S US OR THEM! IT'S US OR THEM! ARRRRGH!
It's crucial that we come to terms with war questions because we will have war with Iran and North Korea.
Oh, ho ho! WILL you now? Noooo, yah won't.
It will come down to their children or ours, their soldiers or ours, their countries or ours.
You are a very stupid and evil woman. You actively desire suffering for your countryman and the countrymen of nations so vanishingly inferior technologically to your own that medium sized corporations baed in your country could simply BUY them.
Why? And what magical reasons, I wonder, will cluster around your consciousness to feed on and further rationalise your numinous, archetypal "sacrificial" American?
For aging hippies, it's easier to keep blaming old enemies than to confront new ones
Projection, thy name is Republican. Come on down!
Hating a military-industrial complex is safer and less tiring.
Like hating hippies?
It's less complicated -- and less dangerous.
Like hating hippies?
Abstract institutions neither bleed nor shoot back. Demonstrations, marches and sign-carrying don't accomplish much these days, but they are a lot more fun and allow the fiction of activist moral superiority to persist.
But... I thought all the demonstrations, marches and sign-carrying was undermining the war effort?
Their BAWL (Buddha-Allah-Wicca-Lenin) is better than some old Judeo-Christian God.
And real people making decisions about what their country's goals are is even better! ("Sinful, sinful voters! OOOOH don't say we didn't warn you, booga booga, tha LOOOOOOOORD's watching you...oooooOOOoooo")
In their heart of hearts, lefty loonies do want America to lose in Iraq and every military theater. They want outside enemies to accomplish quickly the demolition of American capitalism, using the violence the lefty loonies are too old, too scared and too well-invested to use.
Yeees. Again you criticize the imaginary lefty loonies.
In their real heart of hearts, the REAL "lefty loonies" mostly wish people like you would stop listening to the Devil.
You are wrong. The real lefty loonies do not think about war as you do. The victories, the defeats, these things are not what holds the heart of your average "lefty loony".
It is better that, in the end, the Iraqis determine their own destiny. It is not the responsibility of America to decide how other nations rule themselves and enforce that decision.
But this "every military theatre" stuff *reveals* you.
You care nothing for the American military, do you?
No liberal mistakes the military for a defense of capitalism from outer interests. The scenario you attribute to the liberal imagination is your own and your own only, only a true fantasist would paint the destruction of American capitalism by foreigners as a goal of the Left.
So THAT'S what your military is for. To protect your money and your property from brown people.
I wonder what your military thinks of this?
After all, lefty loonies want their social justice and their pensions, too.
Certainly do! But the tone is condescending. Perhaps the "lefty loonies" DESERVE their pensions, having worked for them? Perhaps social justice does not exclude this?
Luckily, no one lives forever. Luckily, there is Generation Jones to take up their slack. America is too great to go down without a fight.
America is too HUGE to go down at ALL. There IS no fight, save the silly squabbling between aging pub hacks and their own imaginations. Oh, except Iraq.
You never name the country where the REAL fight's taking place, do you, you people? Why, I wonder?
Oh, and you'd better take another look at "Generation Jones".
Yet, please be compassionate toward aging, albeit dangerous, erstwhile flower folks. Understand their pain when communism failed. Understand their desire to enforce perfect harmony. Understand their insistence that we love humanity except those in uniforms.
Yes, *do* be compassionate, dear readers. But not for an imaginary pain at the "failure of communism". Be compassionate for the much more real pain of those who have lost children in a useless war whose sole identifiable purpose was to spite the world but much, MUCH more to spite the American Left.
Understand the left's desire to *resist* the enforcement of perfect *disharmony*, laws against gay marriage, against love itself, laws casting aside the very concept of innocence, laws motivated by sniggering cynicism and simple, empty, despairing faithlessness. Understand THAT.
Just don't vote for them in 2008.
Shouldn't be hard. There aren't any "hippies" running.
Perhaps you'd like to have a pop at some politicians next time, dear?
After all, there are now PLENTY of powerful Democratic politicians to choose from.
I'll be waiting.
EDIT:
Oh, and one more thing. You could not HOPE to compare in terms of ordinary common decency with any of the REAL hippies I've met.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
