How could anyone actually believe that "we" should or could "win" in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[ConsAreLiars]

Well, of course, the answer partly lies in the fact that some gullible, misinformed and misled people actually think the "we" includes them and so want to believe they are not losers. Such delusions aside, the "we" in reality means the invaders under the direction of transnational corporatism.

So actually the "we" means "them" rather than "us." So, idiots who can't tell the difference between themselves and Exxon aside, can "they" win?

Can "they" turn the people of those countries into desperate and subservient wage slaves? They've done pretty well here, so maybe they can succeed there as well. The "shock doctrine" has worked for a while in various places although not for long. The people of Iraq have certainly seen their whole social infrastructure decimated and their families butchered, so desperate is certainly a fitting word to describe their situation.

Yet somehow, I think they have a sense of honor, a sense of self-determination. I think they, the Afghans and the Iraqis, just as the Vietnamese, will continue to resist.

Maybe the people will just lie down and give up. Cowards like McCain and The Supreme Chimp and all the rest of the Neocons project their own willingness to submit when frightened onto these foreigners, but somehow, I think they are wrong.

And maybe we, too, will stand up.

[MADem]

1. Well, there aren't any candidates that think we should dump Afghanistan

Obama has specifically called for increased troop levels there. http://whereistand.com/BarackObama/23643

[monktonman]

2. Where does Hillary stand on this?

[MADem]

4. I don't think she's been quite as specific, but I'd bet she's probably

on a similar page.

[ConsAreLiars]

3. And why, for what, and for whom?

Unfortunately, 90% of even the Dems still echo that vile assumption that US domination of either is somehow just. Evil fuckers, to put it in the vernacular, or, at best, just gullible fools and tools.

[Smith_3]

5. I once read something about the Vietnamese somwhere, were a person said that,

even if we torched the entire country to the ground, and killed every man woman and child in Vietnam except for one person, that last person would still be throwing rocks at us.

I think if you push a group of people to a point to where they feel like they have nothing to lose, they will go to lenghts in defending whats left, that any person who has lead a comfortable life so far cannot even imagine.

[Smith_3]

6. Its because the average american can relate almost anything to a football game.

Even a war or an election. Pick your team. Get your bumpersticker and your flag for your yard. And cheer and make fun of the other team when your people score a goal.

It has some connection to what happened in the Roman Empire with the "Bread and Games" concept, IMO.

[Arctic Dave]

7. I don't think winning is even option anymore

Shock and terror work best when the person feels they still have something to protect. Take that away and you have given them nothing else to do but to resist you.

[ConsAreLiars]

8. It was never an option, only a coward's megalomaniac fantasy.

During Vietnam these neocons played board games, and imagined that 100 tanks against 100 rocks always means that the country is theirs to use in the next round of play. Under the guidance of Leo Strauss they reassured themselves that they were the natural master class, and any tendencies to respect common ethics and morality, and certainly any sense of connection to the commoners, were just bad habits to be shed.

IN SANE. From their very beginnings. And evil. Psychopaths by nature and training, And totally unable to relate to anything but fear and power.

[Arctic Dave]

10. Yes

You say it well.

[Breeze54]

9. It's about $$ and saving face...was never about 'winning'....

That's an impossibilty. (in Iraq)

And they're hardly trying in Afghanistan.