Supporting while Opposing
February 21, 2005
2:36 pm
Michelle Malkin notes a NY Times article chronicling the rise in violence and harassment against campus military recruiters.
Not much info on any successful prosecutions of the punks responsible for these nearly seditious attacks. So much for “opposing the war and supporting the troops,” huh?
Michelle Malkin: Military Recruiters Under Fire
I can respect that some people don’t think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary. But at this point, our troops are committed, so how is it even possible to oppose the war without opposing the troops? By “oppose the war,” I don’t mean people who want to go back in time and never go to war in the first place, but the people who advocate withdrawing from the Middle East tomorrow and who continually criticize what our troops are doing. To oppose the war in that way now that it has started is to oppose the mission of our troops. How is possible to support our troops when you oppose the thing for which they are working?
It seems to me that the people who do stuff like throw buckets of manure into recruitment offices, while they are obviously juvenile, at least are being honest about their opposition to the troops.
The troops are F*cked, they are cannon fodder.
They are not there for WMD’s, not for Saddam,
not for freedom, not for democracy. They are in
Iraq to secure the huge pool of oil under the
sands,and the rest of the Iraqi economy, under
Order 39 of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
The troops find themselves not able to identify
their enemies, so every Iraqi is their enemy.
They are nervous, as all occupiers become,
and have become cruel and brutal.
They are F*cked. The “Mission” is F*cked.
Support the troops by giving up the dream
of economically/politically colonizing Iraq and
bringing them home.
Why don’t any U.S. companies have Iraqi oil contracts? Could it be because the contracts went to Turkey and Canada?
Why have we forgiven Iraqi debt? If this is a war for oil, we’re getting screwed… because we gave them their war, and we’re not getting any oil in return.
You call the troops “cruel and brutal,” and then advocate “supporting” them by bringing them home. I think you just made my point.
You hit the nail on the head.
Americans were never going to get anything.
Americans are getting screwed.
This was always about “privatizing”.
American multi-nationals are the ones to get.
“In a scathing new report to Congress, Gen Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, said that while the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was careful to monitor the spending of US taxpayers’ money in Iraq, it failed to provide proper oversight of projects paid for with Iraq’s own funds.” $9 Billion missing
This a war about MONEY/Power.
We are over our heads, being played.
The troops are victims.
Hi *waves*
It would be nice to see US troops back with their families, but that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. While I strongly disagree with the entire invasion, it has happened. Demanding an immediate withdrawal of troops, which are at this moment the only thing that stands between order and chaos, seems shortsighted. You can claim all you want that the troops are victims of corporate greed, but that is a lot like throwing manure into a recruiting office. It is pointless and doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.
To get the troops home, the UN (or a trained replacement army) has to be convinced to take control of Iraq’s peacekeeping. This is something that the newly elected government of Iraq should do. All the average Iraqi wants is a world that doesn’t shake anymore. Somewhere safe. Most of them had that under Saddam Hussein and that is the reason most of the are angry with coalition troops. They took their safety away. You can say the coalition troops gave them freedom, but it is natural for people to want to safety (however illusionary) and they would give up just about anything (freedom for example) to get even the illusion of safety. If you don’t believe me, do a search on the Internet for something called the Patriot Act.
I’m not saying that the UN will succeed where the US failed, it’s just the US has become the representation of all their pain. UN peacekeepers (or better, a trained Iraqi Army) represent hope that things will get better, that things will eventually return to normal. Will it make a difference? Probably not, but at least it gets more coalition troops home and relieves the financial burden from the US.
Then again, that’s just my opinion.
If the US were to assure the Iraqis that Iraqi resources
and industries belonged to Iraqi’s it would go a ways to
quieting things down. We are still sticking to the plan of
some laisez faire capitalist paradise. No Iraqi political
leader, besides some American whore, can accept that
concept. Just as difficult ,after our behavior, would be
the concept of US military bases.
You’re correct the Iraqis want safety. They want to go to
the store not worrying about being kidnapper or blown up.
They want electricity and water. They want their jobs.
Things they had pre-invasion.
They don’t want Marines breaking down their doors putting
guns to their families heads as they are tonight in Ramadi.
The UN or some other force is necessary to help stabilize
the country. We are not about to leave like Napolean from
Russia, but leave we must.
Worse than a crime, a blunder.