GUEST POLITICAL SPIEL BY The CandyMan
When confronted with the fact that two-thirds of Americans think the war in Iraq "isn't worth fighting," Dick Cheney famously responded, "So?" Later, he explained that Americans only get to weigh in every four years, when they elect their President. Every four years, they have a choice.
And Cheney's right.
We have a choice this year. Overall, the war in Iraq has gone terribly. We were all ready to pull out ASAP. But then, the surge started working. So the question is... do we stay or do we go?
Barack Obama says we go. Garbage in, garbage out. Badly conceived wars lead to bad outcomes. We lost the war, or tied, like we did in Vietnam. We have to get out of Iraq, just like we got out of Vietnam. We should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But get out we should. We'll learn our lesson, we'll move on, just like Vietnam.
John McCain says we stay. We are Americans. We never give up. We fight to the death. The surge is proof that we can win this war. The cards are in our favor. All we have to do is "double down."
But what does "doubling down" actually mean?
For John McCain, doubling down means that we, as a nation, commit to win this war at all costs. That is how he will interpret it, if we elect him. After all, we could easily have "opted out" this time around, since the war was waged under false pretenses. To elect McCain in spite of the war's unpopularity is to hand him a mandate, just like we handed Bush a mandate in 2004.
That means we are giving him a carte blanche to spend as much as he wants on the war - even if it drives America further and further into debt.
But it's not just money. We are talking about sending our American troops into the line of fire for another 4-8 years. Now, many of these soldiers on on their fourth or fifth tour in Iraq already. They're tired. And there aren't enough of them to win in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time (not to mention our soon-to-nuclear pals the Iranians, who have a well-rested, well-equipped army bigger than ours).
As a country, we cannot keep sending these same soldiers into harm's way without the willingness to incur some personal risk of our own. It will not stand. It simply will not stand. McCain has been a soldier. He identifies with those men out on the streets of Baghdad.
The Republicans love that feel-good story about McCain in the POW camp. It's a great story. But has anyone actually been listening to that story? Have Americans actually considered what that story really means?
McCain wouldn't leave his brothers at the POW camp because he couldn't stomach leaving them in harm's way while he took a free pass. Do you really think he's going to let us get away with doing just that to our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq?
It will not stand. It will not stand! McCain is not the type to surrender. It's win or die trying. We know that going in to this election, as a country. If McCain is elected, and the situation in Iraq worsens, he will consider a draft. His sense of duty, his identification with the selfless men in uniform, will compel it. He'll never admit in public, I'm telling you. But that's how he'll read the election: we doubled down, we committed, we are in it to win it. A draft is on the table. It's not a foregone conclusion, but if we elect McCain, a draft is on the table. That's the elephant in the room this election year.
If there's a draft, it's possible my eighteen year old brother, a sweet and innocent boy, will be pushed up in front of a bunch of terrorist sniper rifles. Why? Because we were too proud to lose another war. That's the risk we're taking. That's what it means to "double down."
Oh, we will protest. We will protest greatly. We didn't sign up for this, we'll say. You told us it wouldn't come to this. But McCain will console us. He'll tell us what it means to be a servant of our country. He couldn't leave his brothers in the POW camp. And we can't leave our brothers in Iraq. And how can we argue with that?
You had a choice, he'll say. Four years ago, you had a choice.
And he'll be right.
(If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to LNM's & CandyMan's Barack Obama Fundraiser. We are trying to raise ten times chai... if just 18 people give 10 dollars each, we can make a real difference this election year.)
41 comments:
I am reposting my last comment from the previous post, in case people didn't read it because of CM's new post.
Candyman, some wars are lost, some are won. Some are inconclusive. If we always knew what the outcome of wars would be, there would be NO war because both sides would know what is going to happen, including the loser and therefore he wouldn't go to war. Wars always result from miscalculation and misunderstanding. Its the nature of war and the nature of humans. No war is ever clean or certain, and mistakes are always made.
If you have been following Iraq, positive progress is really being made. Stability is gradually increasing, although it has ups and downs. I hope America will be able to leave Iraq soon.
Many are against the war because it did not go as cleanly as we planned or hoped for. Notwithstanding the misleading information before the war, had everything gone smoothly, the Iraqis surrending with an orderly transfer of power, nobody would be complaining. 3000 dead in 5 years of warfare is not alot, in the history of wafare. It would be nice if there were 0 deaths.
Nobody wants to lose their brother or son or husband. My son is drafted into the IDF next month. As you have seen, I question the wisdom of our leaders and don't agree with everything they do. But if we want to continue with our free, comfortable way of life we have to be willing to sacrifice for it. That is an army's job. If the US retreats from the battle against Islamist in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will be forced to fight them elsewhere but closer to home-- in Europe or in the homeland. We must fight our enemies in THEIR turf, not ours. That is basic war doctrine.
I think that McCain understands this, but I'm not sure that Obama does.
drj, thanks for your in-depth comments and repost.
My son is drafted into the IDF next month.
I'm sorry to hear this. I'll be honest with you: I think you are making a mistake, sending your child off to fight. Young men are incapable of making that kind of decision, to risk their lives, at 18 years old. They are biologically programmed to think that they are invincible at that age. And they are not yet confident enough in their own intellect to challenge a society that supports, even celebrates, a compulsory draft.
If you have been following Iraq, positive progress is really being made. Stability is gradually increasing, although it has ups and downs.
Yes. If you take 130,000 troops and turn them into street police, you can quiet the streets. But this is a band-aid. It's not progress. And these troops are no longer in direct combat with the terrorists. They are protecting the populace. That means no one is chasing the terrorists down, and they are getting stronger.
But if we want to continue with our free, comfortable way of life we have to be willing to sacrifice for it.
Oh, I agree. That's the point of the post. The problem is, Americans want to have their cake and eat it, too. They won't even consider a draft, but they expect to win a war. As I said, it will not stand. We have to choose.
If the US retreats from the battle against Islamist in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will be forced to fight them elsewhere but closer to home-- in Europe or in the homeland.
I guess this is where we disagree. America doesn't border Iraq. We're safe. So is Europe. There's no danger of a military invasion from the terrorists.
Suicide attacks like 9/11 are always a threat, but I don't see how waging a war in Iraq makes us safer on that count. If anything, we should focus on defense - on securing and dismantling the world's nuclear arsenals.
On the flip side, there is one thing we can do that will definitely increase casualties on a daily basis: stay on the terrorists' home turn. Israel is an excellent example of this.
Why did Israel pull out of Gaza? was it some kind of moral imperative? A gesture towards peace? No. It was because 96% of terror attacks were happening in the occupied territories. Just look at that pie chart. By staying in Gaza, Israel was just putting its soldiers in the line of fire! And Sharon was sick of losing men patrolling the streets of Gaza.
Now, in Israel, you might argue that this invites rocket attacks. But that's not true in the US. we don't border Iraq. And even in Israel, the rocket attacks are still better than having young, 18-year-old conscripted "soldiers" die on a daily basis.
I have blogged more about my philosophy of less defense, more offense here.
"If McCain is elected, and the situation in Iraq worsens, he will consider a draft."
I can't even put my words together in a somewhat coherent fashion to properly reply to this statement. I know that if I say something like, 'You assume this, don't state it as fact', you, or someone who agrees with what you just wrote will say, 'It's an opinion piece.' It's as if someone had written an Anti-Obama piece and written, "I Obama is elected, he will take all the troops out immediately and never allow anyone to join the army, navy, etc ever again." I don't know, I guess it just feels like you're trying to make out McCain to be completely inconsiderate of the entire country's needs, simply because he felt too guilty to leave his men behind the first time around.
Candman
So what do you suppose to do, draft men at 28? If not for these 18 year old children that think they are invisible, Israel would not be as great as it is. Your anti-war (at all costs) bias is showing, once again.
>That means no one is chasing the terrorists down, and they are getting stronger.
Nu, and had they been, and soldiers would OBVIOUSLY be killed, you would then start complaining again.
It is odd indeed, the world we live in. Man, for ever, has realized war is necessary. That large amounts of lives are to be lost. But now, people are so much more squimish. It used to be, that when you go into war, you go in, and hit HARD. Now, there is so much more politics in everything, with every other group with an agenda is looking over your shoulder to see how you are waging it. When something goes amiss (like the do in EVERY WAR) its in the public eye within seconds.
btw
I will readily admit that, now, I see Iraq was a mistake. But I believe if you are in, you do it right, from the beginning as well. That means you go in, and you go in hard and not how Rumsfeld envisioned it (with a light force). You either do it right, or you don't do it at all. Now that we are in, I would like the military to be left alone to do its job.
to this day I don't think McCain thinks that the Vietnam war was a mistake. Add if that wasn't a mistake, I don't know what the definition of a mistaken war is. If it was up to him, I think we'd still be fighting that war
@jessica,
I guess it just feels like you're trying to make out McCain to be completely inconsiderate of the entire country's needs, simply because he felt too guilty to leave his men behind the first time around.
That's not how I intended it. My complaint was not against McCain, who would be justified in reinstating the draft, since that's the only way we're gonna win in Iraq. McCain would only be following the logic of his reelection to its natural conclusion. My criticism was of those Americans who think they can double down without great sacrifice - have their cake and eat it too.
@HH,
So what do you suppose to do, draft men at 28?
I usually suggest 40. Don't send a boy to do a man's job.
If not for these 18 year old children that think they are invisible, Israel would not be as great as it is. Your anti-war (at all costs) bias is showing, once again.
Like I said, send the 40 year olds who know what the hell they're getting into.
>That means no one is chasing the terrorists down, and they are getting stronger.
Nu, and had they been, and soldiers would OBVIOUSLY be killed, you would then start complaining again.
You missed the point. We don't have enough military strength to win in Iraq without a draft.
It is odd indeed, the world we live in. Man, for ever, has realized war is necessary. That large amounts of lives are to be lost. But now, people are so much more squimish. It used to be, that when you go into war, you go in, and hit HARD. Now, there is so much more politics in everything, with every other group with an agenda is looking over your shoulder to see how you are waging it. When something goes amiss (like the do in EVERY WAR) its in the public eye within seconds.
Apt point. It's not just politics that keep us from "hitting hard." And there's also selfishness: we are willing to risk our troops but not our bodies.
As Yoda might say: THAT is why you fail.
Re: hitting hard...
I used to say, There's nothing wrong with the Palestinians that we couldn't cure with a good strafe bombing of the West Bank.
Then I understood: strafe-bomb the West Bank, and Israel would be invaded by every country on its borders.
The reason we don't "hit hard" anymore isn't just that we're squeamish. It's a calculated military decision. We want to avoid escalation.
>I usually suggest 40. Don't send a boy to do a man's job.
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. For all of history, 18 year olds and younger have fought and defending nations. Now, in this century we start with this psychoanalytical bullshit TELLING them that they ARE boys? These boys ARE men. They get fitted to BE men, something that I realize the western world "FEELS" is simply awful.
>You missed the point. We don't have enough military strength to win in Iraq without a draft.
You are probably right. I think we should start taking out our soldiers from every other part of the world like Europe and Asia.
>The reason we don't "hit hard" anymore isn't just that we're squeamish. It's a calculated military decision. We want to avoid escalation.
Ah, and if there wasn't a threat from surrounded countries? Would you have a problem then? We didn't get peace with Egypt with being lovey to them. We got peace because because we put the fear of God in them and made them realized that Israel is not going anywhere. That their wars would not work anymore.
The reason we don't "hit hard" anymore isn't just that we're squeamish. It's a calculated military decision. We want to avoid escalation.
Who is "we"? BTW, here are some pics to look at.
What are those pictures for? "We" is referring to America
Those pictures are to show that there are plenty of places in the world where countries "hit hard" and they are not afraid of escalation...
Those were pictures of Grozny in Chechnia, btw.
Maybe I got confused. I thought "we" was the US. Certainly we could escalate things if we chose to...
BTW, Russia is surrounded by hostile neighbors on all sides. Poland, Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia, the Stans. Ukraine alone has a population of 46M. Plus many of these are now backed by NATO.
Yes
Because countries like Georgia have been so formidable :P
>Because countries like Georgia have been so formidable :P
Are you kidding me? Georgia can easily become another Afghanistan for Russia. The Georgians are almost as crazy as the Chechens. Maybe it's the lack of oxygen in those mountains.
Anyway, this is getting off topic. Sorry.
Candy Man said:
" My criticism was of those Americans who think they can double down without great sacrifice - have their cake and eat it too."
You are correct about this in a much broader way. Americans also think that they can maintain their gas-guzzling SUV's, big mortgages and credit card loans, and cheap Chinese imports forever while keeping America all-powerful. Unbridled American consumerism, in a globalized environment, means that American wealth is slowly being sucked out of the country, to China and OPEC countries. And dependence on foreign oil is sucking away American power and independence.
>Unbridled American consumerism, in a globalized environment, means that American wealth is slowly being sucked out of the country,
I don't understand. So are you saying Americans should STOP buying in order for the wealth to stay in America?
BTW- Having other nations being wealthy is not a terrible thing. With more wealthier nations come more business with them as well as them investing in us.
McCain on the draft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvLhRuF81y4&feature=related
Yeah, he sure sounds like that would be something he's likely to do. Right.
These boys ARE men. They get fitted to BE men, something that I realize the western world "FEELS" is simply awful.
I'll simply reiterate what I said before: Young men are incapable of making that kind of decision, to risk their lives, at 18 years old. They are biologically programmed to think that they are invincible at that age. And they are not yet confident enough in their own intellect to challenge a society that supports, even celebrates, a compulsory draft.
It is one thing when you are forced to enter a military conflict. But by voting McCain, you're choosing to eat that apple. Again. How many young men's lives is it worth not to lose a war?
I prefer setting the draft at 40 years of age. A 40 year old is not physically as strong as an 18 year old, but he's a lot smarter. He's old enough to decide whether he wants to put his life in front of a firing squad.
40 year old virgins excluded.
McCain on the draft (link is broken)
As I wrote in the post:
He'll never admit in public, I'm telling you. But that's how he'll read the election: we doubled down, we committed, we are in it to win it. A draft is on the table. It's not a foregone conclusion, but if we elect McCain, a draft is on the table. That's the elephant in the room this election year.
... Oh, we will protest. We will protest greatly. We didn't sign up for this, we'll say. You told us it wouldn't come to this. But McCain will console us. He'll tell us what it means to be a servant of our country. He couldn't leave his brothers in the POW camp. And we can't leave our brothers in Iraq. And how can we argue with that?
And I will reiterate what I said that this is nothing more than 21st century psychoanalytical bullshit. 18 year olds have been fighting for centuries and now all of a sudden, it bothers some peoples sensitivities. Some countries need drafts. Reality, go figure.
I wish, for ONCE, you would start being a bit more realistic
At least we know now that fear mongering is not only on the side of the right.
CM,
"McCain on the draft (link is broken)"
It's not broken. It worked for me. Here's it again: http://tiny.cc/mccain734
He has been asked about the issue and is emphatically against it. "Adamantly opposed" - in his words. You're calling him a liar.
I challenge you to base your accusations on something more than self-serving biased assumptions about what's going on in his mind.
@HH,
18 year olds have been fighting for centuries and now all of a sudden, it bothers some peoples sensitivities.
Same could be said abouts slavery.
Some countries need drafts.
Ours doesn't.
@OP,
I challenge you to base your accusations on something more than self-serving biased assumptions about what's going on in his mind.
Good, good. My opinion is based on his speech the other night. And the fact that a draft is a military necessity if we're going to win this war.
Of course, the lack of evidence proves nothing. McCain knows that suggesting a draft right now would be political suicide.
But you are right, it's worth digging deeper into what McCain has said in the past to see if I can find any real evidence. His books are probably a good place to start, and older statements (before he started running for prez). I'll take up that challenge, and post if I find anything interesting. Let me know if you find anything, too.
CM,
"My opinion is based on his speech the other night."
Where he gave no indication of doing anything remotely like the reinstating the draft. OK.
"And the fact that a draft is a military necessity if we're going to win this war."
A military necessaity, eh? Based on your expert strategic assessment? US troops just gave over Anbar province to Iraqi control and this year has already seen a withdrawal of some five brigades from Iraq with another brigade reduction likely to be announced sometime this week. We are winning this war.
Frankly, you're making that up from whole cloth.
"Of course, the lack of evidence proves nothing. McCain knows that suggesting a draft right now would be political suicide."
Right. And Obama admitting he's a radical Muslim would too.
>Same could be said abouts slavery.
You're comparing?
I take it you are saying drafting an 18 year old is morally wrong like slavery?
>Ours doesn't.
So, I suggest we get rid of ours then.
candy man - ah... I getcha.
A military necessaity, eh? Based on your expert strategic assessment? US troops just gave over Anbar province to Iraqi control and this year has already seen a withdrawal of some five brigades from Iraq with another brigade reduction likely to be announced sometime this week. We are winning this war.
We have 130,000 troops there. That's basically our entire army. About 1,000 of our troops die in Iraq every year.
Most scholars consider Iraq a civil war. In the long run the Sunni/Shiite divide is a Rwanda waiting to happen. There are 22,000,000 people in Iraq. You can't stop a civil war that size with 130,000 troops.
We are stretched too thin. Soldiers are doing third, fourth, fifth tours of duty. And we have another front in the war, in Afghanistan. The violence there has seesawed with Iraq's. This works to the terrorists' advantage.
You pin your hopes on the new Iraqi army. I do not share your faith. They are a weak army. Our experience suggests that these kinds of armies - the Western sponsored ones with little experience and even less motivation - don't work. The Iraqi army will be no more effective than Fatah was at controlling Hamas. It's exactly the same, only worse because the Iraqis really hate each other.
So, good luck solving this one with your 130,000 tired-out troops.
>We have 130,000 troops there. That's basically our entire army. About 1,000 of our troops die in Iraq every year.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_soldiers_are_in_the_US_military
I took my information from here.
CM,
"We have 130,000 troops there. That's basically our entire army."
What are you smoking? The US has a standing army of some 500K and some 700K in the reserves and guard. And that's just the army. Our military altogether has some 1.4 million people on active duty and another 1.4 million in the various reserves.
"There are 22,000,000 people in Iraq. You can't stop a civil war that size with 130,000 troops."
Well, since violent attacks have been way reduced since last year - a 90% reduction of sectarian attacks since last year, a 94% reduction on Al Quaeda attacks in Iraq since last year - as well as US casualties being the lowest they have ever been, even compared to the start of the war, there is every reason to suppose that the peace can be held.
McCain - as well as the Pentagon - and virtually all military sources I know of strongly disfavor a draft because a volunteer army is that much more enthusiastic and well trained that it makes a far more effective force. I see no reason why this long-term and emphatic attitude would change, especially given our latest consistent success in Iraq.
According to news sources, later today Bush will announce a reduction of some 8000 troops by February.
You are fear mongering for political gain. That's it.
"Racist."
No, fool, I was saying that McCain's mindset for a draft was *just as* true as Obama's radical Muslim ideology. Both unfalsifiable and both accusations pushed for political gain.
HH said:
don't understand. So are you saying Americans should STOP buying in order for the wealth to stay in America?
I am not arguing for protectionism. But consumerism without responsibility is harmful to the country's national interests, in cases of unrestrained and excessive consumption of precious resources (oil) and without regard to ability to pay. I think that there needs to be intelligent social policy that discourages these things, using taxes or other incentives to encourage savings.
American have grown too fat, figuratively and literally. Obesity is a symptom, as is the crisis in the mortgage market. In essence, Americans are living beyond their means, and leaving the bill to our children. Who will pay the trillions needed for the Fannie Mae bailout? American GDP is artificially high and inflated by debt. Our indebtedness to other countries and the dependence on foreign oil makes us susceptible to blackmail. The bubble has to burst.
Regarding draft-- it is an unfortunate reality of the world that we must send young men to fight, who are the most fit and pyschologically able to cope with battle.
In my humble opinion, the United States military should leave Iraq today and President Bush should be tried as a war criminal.
I also propose that the President's salary be raised to the level of at least a corporate CEO so we can get someone normal doing that job. We now end up with morons having their finger on the nuclear trigger. Not smart.
You are fear mongering for political gain.
No, I'm just following the logic of staying in the middle east to it's natural conclusion. If you think our military is in good shape, consider the fact that the Pentagon brass recommended against the surge. Why was that again?
Again, the recent gains in Iraq are offset by our recent losses in Afghanistan. Why don't you cite the stats for that.
The truth is, Americans don't care about this war. They don't care whether we win or lose. And that's why we won't have a draft, and we're going to lose sooner (Obama) or later (McCain).
In my humble opinion, the United States military should leave Iraq today and President Bush should be tried as a war criminal.
I don't agree with the war criminal part, but I think JP and I see eye to eye on the issue of the Iraq war. That should tell you something ;)
CM,
"No, I'm just following the logic of staying in the middle east to it's natural conclusion."
Ha, ok. Just like those other commentators are "following the logic" of Obama's personal history.
"If you think our military is in good shape, consider the fact that the Pentagon brass recommended against the surge. Why was that again?"
You should know that if you're using it to support your contention. Their reasons were almost entirely because they didn't think a troop increase of just 20-30K would be effective and/or because they didn't want to increase troop levels without a specific mission for them to accomplish. The thinness of the military was a concern, but put to rest actually pretty early in the debate. And nobody said it would force us to reinstate the draft.
"Again, the recent gains in Iraq are offset by our recent losses in Afghanistan. Why don't you cite the stats for that."
Because nobody's been arguing that the number of troops in Afganistan are what's breaking the military's bank. The issue in Afghanistan is a purely temporary thing that just has to be smacked down - very unlike the essentially political problem in Iraq that needs to be buoyed by military stability.
"The truth is, Americans don't care about this war. They don't care whether we win or lose."
Speak for yourself, sir.
"...I think JP and I see eye to eye on the issue of the Iraq war. That should tell you something ;)"
Sure. It's a telling clue on the level of thought directed towards that conclusion.
the candy man: "Most scholars consider Iraq a civil war."
There are no scholars in foxholes and other people are always dying one way or the other for someone else's intellectual arrogance. How many died because America entered WWII late because of fantasies about appeasing Hitler, or that the Nazis would not affect us if we stayed out of Europe? How many Vietname left behind after we left were marched off to fatal re-education camps? How many North Koreans died because we put up a fence at the 38th parallel and walked away? How many Ethiopeans starved because people gave a contribution to the collection jar and left it at that never knowing most of the charity never ever made it to the supposed beneficiaries?
People are ALWAYS dying for someone else's ideas. ALWAYS. The question is, do you want to die with them, and do you want to die honest?
the candy man: "There are 22,000,000 people in Iraq. You can't stop a civil war that size with 130,000 troops."
There aren't 22,000,000 people in Iraq fighting a civil war. If you put 1,000 Iraqis in blindfolds on the streets with inaccurate rifles and told them to fire randomly, our daily death toll in Iraq would be gigantic just by accident. Clearly, hardly any people are dying by comparison with the overall population numbers.
If the current president of the USA suggests "prayer" there is an immediate hysteria as if he just suggested declaring himself the pope of the church of America. We are told that we are threatened with a Christian Theocracy.
Skeptidox people like yourself are forever decrying theocratic tendencies in the Charedi world and worried about their continuing effects on Judaism as a whole.
Your side of the political spectrum claims we were the aggressors and in the wrong by invading Iraq. This would suggest we owe the people of Iraq to rebuild AT LEAST to the state they were in before we intruded.
There is NO doubt WHATSOEVER that they were more stable under Saddam Hussein than they are now vis a vis threat from Islamic fundamentalism and theocracy. If we leave before we've given them that, then the writing is on the wall and it is a fait accompli, and we are accomplices to it, that they will slide under the oppression of such a fundamentalist theocracy.
We will have victimized them first by invading, secondly by leaving them prey to Islamic theocracy.
You would gladly submit them to a system you yourself would never suffer, Christian or Jewish.
That's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
This isn't about whether we should have gone in the first place, but what do we do NOW. You can't walk away and pretend as if that will make it like it never happened. I guarantee you your grandchildren will be going to war over there against Islamic theocrats a few decades down the line if they aren't stopped now.
As I said before, people are always dying for someone else's ideas and the only questions for you are do you want to die with them and do you want to die honestly. Run away from Iraq and leave the mess for another generation, you may not die with them, but you sure as hell won't die honest.
Rebecca, I like that poem! Thanks for sharing it.
Suitepotato, I'm not sure what brought about your rant. Anyways, I'm not "skeptidox." I'm not any sort of dox at all.
As for Iraq, we made the mess, and every second we stay there we just make things worse. That's a perspective I take from the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which turned out to be a colossal waste of time. If you think there's no Iraqi uprising coming, you're wrong. And it won't just be Iraqis that die. It'll be all the soldiers we've got stuck there.
Believe me, they are in the center of a shitstorm. And we better beam 'em up. Or it won't be 4,000 dead. It'll be 40,000.
people are always dying for someone else's ideas and the only questions for you are do you want to die with them and do you want to die honestly.
I think this is a good question and my personal answer is: certainly not! I want to live and enjoy life and love and all that jazz. IMHO, there's no cause worth putting yourself in the line of fire for.
Post a Comment