Letters to the Editor
-
in the well....
"The short of it this: this disaster in Iraq, which is growing worse by the day, is being supported by those who have no experience or creditability in military operations or the region and by those with a record of military service who should know better than to continue the occupation."
What that distils to is you have no respect for anyone in favor of the continued occupation of Iraq, regardless of their credentials or lack thereof. That's fine. But it is almost always true of those who trot out the chickenhawk argument at the Kagans and Kristols. You might not be one of them, but you share the condition of believing that nothing entitles one to continued support of the Iraqi occupation - which means their attempts to attack those who do based on lack of military experience is fundamentally dishonest.
"They actually knew each other's names and had interests in common"
Yes, the desire to produce the most heinously idiotic offspring in Appalachia, an ambition that meshed well with their sub-par genes, hairy palms and primevally low foreheads. Who can doubt their success?
-
L.W.M This is not a rice fermenting bash. Hot Sake? For Peace Sake!
L.W.M.
Next the fake warriors will be crying over spilt rice wine sake?
R.M.P.?
-
Sorry
And with that, I think my <*cough*>"joke" about "legitimate" "civil wars" has been beaten into the ground and I apologise for even bringing it up on a serious thread....
Didn't mean to ruin a joke. I have a knee-jerk reaction on Geneva, coming from a real life commitment. Please accept profuse apologies.
-
P.W. Proximately Warning. Interstate road signs read:
Drunk sake drivers who are slop-faced from bad rice mash will be jailed and charged for D.U.I!
All AEI drunks will receive like minded prison bunk buddies. To win WHAT? For Penance? Time!
This isn't a masquerade party for masked murderous mentalities any today. Same-same-Shame
-
apologies... 'munch'.... munch stale fruit cake. I tease 'o'. Oh, Respect.
Sitting on a tin pot in a musty jail cell.
Kagan's pals are looking pained and pale.
Jail birds dress in colored dashiki's garbs.
Tunics are worn as they eat stale fruitcakes.
What a pleasant, loose fit, tunic from Yoruba.
-
The value of experience
Wijid, I appreciate the comment from someone with actual experience. Still, what separates a Petraeus, a McNamara, a Kissinger, or a Kagan from someone like me isn't their experience or lack of it; it's their absolute conviction that superior American force can make vast numbers of people do what they manifestly don't want to do -- in perpetuity, if necessary. That is in fact the only ticket to the game. Remain unconvinced, like me, and you aren't allowed to play.
You don't need to be career Marine Corps or CIA to know that this is desperate nonsense for any number of reasons -- political, economic, social. You just have to be a human being of average intelligence and experience who's learned from paying close attention to how people behave in a wide variety of circumstances. It also helps to realize that the calculus of horrors we call warfare isn't an abstraction which we can inflict on others with no consequence to ourselves, certainly not forever.
As I say, dulce et decorum est to have the opinion of a living warrior about the limited effectiveness of war, but honestly, for most people Homer, Caesar or Thucydides would do just as well.
-
The great & Powerful IOZ
Glenn, I just returned from reading the IOZ post you linked to.
Such an eloquent smackdown!
Glenn, thanks for the link. It's now bookmarked in the #2 position right under your site.
-
@ Ondolette
Please accept profuse apologies.
No apologies necessary. Your contribution was substantive; mine merely flip.
Cheers,
-
If there's a logic to your reasoning, Proximity Warning, it escapes me.
What that distils to is you have no respect for anyone in favor of the continued occupation of Iraq, regardless of their credentials or lack thereof.
Indeed I do not. Nor should you, nor anyone who is willing to acknowledge this Gordonesque disaster for what it is.
That's fine. But it is almost always true of those who trot out the chickenhawk argument at the Kagans and Kristols.
Which has what to do with the original argument? My lack of respect against them is based on practical consideration of the outcome of the actions they've proposed and initiated, not purely ideological ones.
You might not be one of them, but you share the condition of believing that nothing entitles one to continued support of the Iraqi occupation - which means their attempts to attack those who do based on lack of military experience is fundamentally dishonest.
That presupposes I believe that in the first place. McCain, the Kagan brothers, and the rest of the world are perfectly entitled to support the occupation for whatever reasons they wish. Simply because they are entitled to their opinions does not mean they can't be criticised, called out, and deservedly mocked for them.
There are a thousand and one reasons to oppose the continuence of this madness. That some of the loudest supporters of it have no military experience, yet present themselves as strategic masterminds, is just one of them.
Again, do NOT automatically conflate my reasons for wanting this occupation ended with everyone else's.
If we follow that kind of logic, the argument could be made that you - like anonymoose and shooter242 - are in favor of ongoing ethnic cleansing, social violence, and the complete destruction of any civil society in that region, all by virtue of your continued support of this occupation.
-
Kagan, 4/06: "We are not facing a civil war in Iraq"
Fred Kagan, 4/3/06, The Weekly Standard: "the fact is that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq."
Fred Kagan, 3/24/08: "The civil war in Iraq is over."
No evidence I can see that he acknowledged the existence of a civil war between those two dates.
-
God....
"That in the first place. McCain, the Kagan brothers, and the rest of the world are perfectly entitled to support the occupation for whatever reasons they wish. Simply because they are entitled to their opinions does not mean they can't be criticised, called out, and deservedly mocked for them."
Right, so long as you are consistent in those criticisms, and not a cheap opportunist like Glenn and his posters, who my original posts on this thread were directed at.
"There are a thousand and one reasons to oppose the continuence of this madness. That some of the loudest supporters of it have no military experience, yet present themselves as strategic masterminds, is just one of them."
It would be not be a good or logical reason though, since you acknowledge military experience has no positive bearing on your assessment of the person's opinion - yet you are willing to count lack of military experience as a negative or at least grant validity to the arguments of those who do. Or are you no willing to grant the validity? In which case why are you are arguing with me?
"Again, do NOT automatically conflate my reasons for wanting this occupation ended with everyone else's."
You picked an argument with me on this thread where I was arguing about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the chickenhawk argument advanced by several posters including Glennwald himself at several points (though not explicitly in this thread).
If you don't have a problem with what I am saying about it - that military experience or no military experience should have no bearing on the assessment of war supporters and that those who pretend that it does are dishonest opportunists - then stop arguing with me.