3 ms·

So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now? Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. The mili

So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now? Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times. You're assuming this is a military task. But I said "learn diplomacy." If your "reply" to a "learn diplomacy" comment assumes that this situation remains a military responsibility, then your reply is not a reply at all. "Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead. "Learn humility" means "stop assuming that this is America's problem to solve." It's not our business and all we're doing is fucking it up.

knowaveragejoe 12y ago
> Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. Huh. The fact that there is a chain of command that this decision must pass sounds like the idea of restraint is not lost on these people. In fact it seems quite the opposite, that there is a directive for restraint. It's not up to the pilots and spotters, no matter how gung-ho they may be(many aren't at all, unlike what is portrayed in the article). The billions the US is pumping into their communities in the form of assistance seems like some form of diplomacy to me, or at least due diligence for the massive social disturbance. I could be wrong. You'll have to explain to the people receiving said aid that it's either misguided or not enough, though. > The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times. We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. The US involvement in Iraq was totally illegal, but it's worth noting that many Iraqis definitely wanted us there after the invasion. They certainly want us there now. > Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead. This statement sounds buried within ideology rather than facts. The US has a massive diplomat corps and engages in some form of diplomacy every day with every country on the planet, save a few. Even moreso in Afghanistan and Iraq. You'll recall that diplomacy did not work shortly after 9/11 when Afghanistan was identified as a host country to Al Queda. Again, the situation is as it is today. We cannot go back and alter the past. So what better way is there to proceed? The US spends billions on aid and reconstruction efforts in both countries, are they simply supposed to ignore threats?
- FD3SA 12y ago
  You are hopelessly mired by incorrect facts and perceived motivations. Many posts above have alluded to this fact, but I'll repeat it since it may help you in the long run. Neither of the two American wars being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq are for traditional reasons. There was no threat to the US. This has everything to do with the Military Industrial Complex, and its iron grip on American foreign policy. The MIC requires war because that's how they sell their products. I would have expected that on a site like HN, this would be obvious. President Eisenhower prophetically warned [1] against the MIC, as he clearly saw how a positive feedback loop would form between private military contractors and US foreign policy, inciting conflict after conflict in order to keep customer demand high for their products. Although you have obviously been thoroughly steeped in the propaganda offered by these two organizations, who could never acknowledge the truth of their actions, to any rational observer there can be no other justification. The US as a whole has everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by slaughtering defenseless civilians in an impoverished developing country. Big defense contractors and the politicians they bribe, however, have everything to gain. And they are winning. This is one of the many failures of democracy, one that requires extreme oversight and prosecution. Sadly, we are primates, and we will succumb to our natures sooner or later. 1. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
  - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
    No, I am simply approaching this from a balanced point of view. The situation is far more nuanced than the "good guys" are really the "bad guys", and that it's all about the money. That's the plot of a movie, not real life. There are many people at all levels and on all sides who have altruistic intent, just as I'm sure there are those who really are perpetuating further conflict for the money. I am in no way questioning the existence or influence of the MIC, but to say that across-the-board this is all about blood money is just as narrow minded as blindly defending the US as if what they're doing is morally right. You'll notice that nowhere in my posts do I go about doing such a thing, by the way. Far from it. I could understand you might have preconceived notions about my position though, it's hard to see the nuance in people's opinions when we reduce things to simply "for" or "against". I subscribe to a Sagan-esque view of mankind as I'm sure many do here. But, again, that has to be tempered by reality or we reach solutions only useful in retrospect like "don't invade in the first place". Anyways, I was originally responding to the commentary that the military had "learned nothing from Vietnam" while "everyone else" did, which is patently false.

knowaveragejoe 12y ago

> Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. Huh. The fact that there is a chain of command that this decision must pass sounds like the idea of restraint is not lost on these people. In fact it seems quite the opposite, that there is a directive for restraint. It's not up to the pilots and spotters, no matter how gung-ho they may be(many aren't at all, unlike what is portrayed in the article). The billions the US is pumping into their communities in the form of assistance seems like some form of diplomacy to me, or at least due diligence for the massive social disturbance. I could be wrong. You'll have to explain to the people receiving said aid that it's either misguided or not enough, though. > The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times. We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. The US involvement in Iraq was totally illegal, but it's worth noting that many Iraqis definitely wanted us there after the invasion. They certainly want us there now. > Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead. This statement sounds buried within ideology rather than facts. The US has a massive diplomat corps and engages in some form of diplomacy every day with every country on the planet, save a few. Even moreso in Afghanistan and Iraq. You'll recall that diplomacy did not work shortly after 9/11 when Afghanistan was identified as a host country to Al Queda. Again, the situation is as it is today. We cannot go back and alter the past. So what better way is there to proceed? The US spends billions on aid and reconstruction efforts in both countries, are they simply supposed to ignore threats?

FD3SA 12y ago
You are hopelessly mired by incorrect facts and perceived motivations. Many posts above have alluded to this fact, but I'll repeat it since it may help you in the long run. Neither of the two American wars being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq are for traditional reasons. There was no threat to the US. This has everything to do with the Military Industrial Complex, and its iron grip on American foreign policy. The MIC requires war because that's how they sell their products. I would have expected that on a site like HN, this would be obvious. President Eisenhower prophetically warned [1] against the MIC, as he clearly saw how a positive feedback loop would form between private military contractors and US foreign policy, inciting conflict after conflict in order to keep customer demand high for their products. Although you have obviously been thoroughly steeped in the propaganda offered by these two organizations, who could never acknowledge the truth of their actions, to any rational observer there can be no other justification. The US as a whole has everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by slaughtering defenseless civilians in an impoverished developing country. Big defense contractors and the politicians they bribe, however, have everything to gain. And they are winning. This is one of the many failures of democracy, one that requires extreme oversight and prosecution. Sadly, we are primates, and we will succumb to our natures sooner or later. 1. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
- knowaveragejoe 12y ago
  No, I am simply approaching this from a balanced point of view. The situation is far more nuanced than the "good guys" are really the "bad guys", and that it's all about the money. That's the plot of a movie, not real life. There are many people at all levels and on all sides who have altruistic intent, just as I'm sure there are those who really are perpetuating further conflict for the money. I am in no way questioning the existence or influence of the MIC, but to say that across-the-board this is all about blood money is just as narrow minded as blindly defending the US as if what they're doing is morally right. You'll notice that nowhere in my posts do I go about doing such a thing, by the way. Far from it. I could understand you might have preconceived notions about my position though, it's hard to see the nuance in people's opinions when we reduce things to simply "for" or "against". I subscribe to a Sagan-esque view of mankind as I'm sure many do here. But, again, that has to be tempered by reality or we reach solutions only useful in retrospect like "don't invade in the first place". Anyways, I was originally responding to the commentary that the military had "learned nothing from Vietnam" while "everyone else" did, which is patently false.