Title: Brother, beware of white girls who look like this Source:
underprivilegedJournalism URL Source:http://underprivilegedjournalism.wordpress.com/ Published:Aug 18, 2008 Author:underprivilegedJournalism Post Date:2008-08-18 09:22:44 by Jethro Tull Keywords:None Views:1755 Comments:166
Poster Comment:
I see, black on white rape is the fault of the white girl....
Their website is hilarious. Most of it is something about blacks using their melanin to channel energy through their pineal gland and zapping their enemies with it. I wonder if "Pastor" Wright believes in this stuff.
As a proponent for genocide you have zero room to preach to me about low intensity or asymmetrical conflict; or constitutional republics either for that matter.
Are these the clever words you neos and 'piles use to discuss unconstitutional war? Me thinks you've been hit in the head with one too many asymmetrical tree limbs.
"Are these the clever words you neos and 'piles use to discuss unconstitutional war? Me thinks you've been hit in the head with one too many asymmetrical tree limbs."
I don't question your superior knowledge through experiance of many aspects of police work. Therefore, seeing how I dealt specifically with the varieties of war happening over there in Special Forces, suffice it to say that is where that came from.
If you would like to debate what is happening there and why I want to see continued suppression of insurgents there, I would not have any problems with that. I do have strong opinions on that conflict, some of which are heavily influenced by my experiance and trainig in the U.S. Army where I was an NCO.
I will agree with you on one thing, the war should not go on unless Congress weighs in and gives their sanction. The fact Bush did not get a declaration is just another trapping of the brand of neocon fascism we are afflicted with with him blighting the White House.
I also will say that in spite of the anger your casual admonition that a genocide should happen, I have to back down on the accusation you are a fascist. In doing so, I violate the Mandel Rule.
I invalidate my argument by using such an accusation. Therefore I will leave this at my dissapointment you seem to care so little for human life, and I am willing to listen to what you have to say to clarify or expand on this comment of yours'.
I still like you as a person, and appreciate the friendship you have shown, and I never throw that away casually.
Anyone using labels such as fascist, communist, or any other hard to define in a way to label another in political debate in a way to try to win it quick, cheaply and in an intellectually lazy way loses the argument/debate by default.
Used at the Well, and in the old Time.com /politics forum moderated by journalist David Mclemore of Texas
If you would like to debate what is happening there and why I want to see continued suppression of insurgents there, I would not have any problems with that.
Yes, lets.
Who are insurgents and how do they differ from freedom fighters? Under what constitutional authority was our military sent and what is our exit strategy?
"Who are insurgents and how do they differ from freedom fighters?"
Insurgency is warfare in which the combatants cannot control territory and sustain conventional military operations unless they have developed overwhelming support, winning the hearts and minds of the people where it occurs.
Insurgents are indigenous or infiltrated outsider combatants who operate usually in a cellular organization where knowledge of who and where all cells and other elements is on a need to know basis for security reasons.
Insurgent is a label derived from the study of insurgency and counterinsurgency. Freedom fighters is a subjective term used by supporters of an insurgency, who are called rebels by the governing authority they are acting to hurt, demoralize, bedevil and ultimately destroy.
Insurgents usually hit and run because it turns logistical weakness into the strength of demoralization caused by each insurgent seeming like fifty to conventional troops and civilian police authorities.
They also sap logistical strength and cause expense to governing authorities by necessitating the guarding and higher security of soft targets like infrastructure such as dams, power stations or supply dumps for example.
As an insurgency wins the hearts and minds of the local population, they are able to step up the level of their efforts.
A good example of what I speak of here was General Westmoreland's foolish statement in Vietnam where he was the U.S. commander about how now N.V.A. and Viet Cong elements were using tanks and other more conventional forces we now could defeat them.
However, in actuality, this was a reflection how support from the general population had swung in a large way from the corrupt Saigon government and their U.S. allies to those conducting insurgency from North Vietnam.
"Under what constitutional authority was our military sent and what is our exit strategy?"
An insurgency is generally considered a low intensity conflict. They are present in various places in the world in our age continuously, and we render varying degrees of support to those friends of ours who are faced with having to conduct counterinsurgency operations.
This can be as little as shipments of military equipment and providing training at the School of the Americas, the Special Forces Qualification Course, or other courses or efforts by specialists in this sort of conflict through the John F. Kennedy Center for Military Assistance at Fort Bragg, N.C., to providing Special Operations Command (SOCOM) units and conventional forces to support them to both directly deal with insurgents and train and organize military elements effective at dealing with the special aspects of insurgency.
As with insurgency, counterinsurgency has the same core mission of winning the hearts and minds of the locals, denying aid and comfort to those being opposed.
As a Special Forces Soldier, I was trained to be empathetic and diplomatic with the locals. SF and other special operations elements go through an extended isolation phase before deploying to digest the large amount of information concerning where one is going.
You learn and are expected to be sensitive to social, religious, cultural and historic aspects of the inhabitants of an area in a manner conventional U.S. forces could never do.
Special Forces has a strong bond of teamwork and is oriented to teaching and organizing where an element such as a Ranger Battalion is a highly trained and extremely fierce and tough military unit that moves fast with a light load accomplishing a mission with far less people then a conventional unit could.
Therefore, an exit strategy in a low intensity conflict such and an insurgency involves how well the mission of training and organizing counter-insurgent element goes. It is highly dependent on winning the hearts and minds of local inhabitants much as is true for an insurgency if they wish to succeed.
Winning, and reaching the exit point often involves resisting the use of conventional forces without training in insurgency as what small gain you get in force and security is lost because of the way conventionals alienate and antagonize locals just by being themselves.
There is no easy answer for establishing a concrete exit strategy in a conflict such as we see in Afghanistan, but I know that if after a set time period no improvement is seen in the situation, or if things just get worse, it makes sense to just call it a day and let the chips fall where they may.
The U.S. and other developed countries need to acknowledge and respect the fact that for all their might, money and know how, sometimes the insurgents win. If ultimately the people vote for them overwhelmingly with there support, one needs to have the presence of mind to recognize this and respect it by leaving.
"I guess I'm not understanding the strong feelings against Iraq, yet the bloodlust for Afghanistan."
I guess I don't understand the strong feelings you claim to have for those whose ancestors came from Europe and your feeling that you should not genocidically kill anyone who's ancestors came from Africa unless you do it right.
More deflection, vis a vis, your blood lust in Afghanistan.
My HIV comment was a comment on Obummer's nutty black pastor, the Rev. Wright. He claimed whites developed HIV in some govt. lab for the purpose of genocide. My remark was a comic reply to his nuttery, which was totally lost on your multicultural-loving ass.
Now, tell me the constitutional authority that guides our military in Afghanistan?
"My HIV comment was a comment on Obummer's nutty black pastor, the Rev. Wright. He claimed whites developed HIV in some govt. lab for the purpose of genocide. My remark was a comic reply to his nuttery, which was totally lost on your multicultural-loving ass."
He isn't his pastor, he WAS his pastor. See what I am seeing about your bias?
And your 'remark' clearly stated that if one was to do genocide, one should not do it unless someone does it right.
Then you stonewalled giving any clarification until now.
Taken in the context of all the bait and hate in here directed against Americans of African ethnic origin that happens constantly with such extreme bias and hatred in this forum, it is important when making such a stupid and blood thirsty comment to clarify what in blue blazes you are talking about and why.
He isn't his pastor, he WAS his pastor. See what I am seeing
about your bias?
And we know this b/c Obama, a
politician seeking the presidency, says so? I submit he can no more toss the
Rev. Wright, a man who married he and Michelle & baptised his children) under
the bus than he can his own white grandmother. Pardon me, but unlike you I
don't hold his words very seriously. Obama is an acolyte to black liberation
theology as are his fellow Chicago street activists. And isn't it odd how the
racial flacks would tear RP, or any other white candidate a new 'hole for past
associations with groups (a visit to Bob Jones Univ. or the C of C as an
example) but cut Obama a break for his past radical ties? The dual racial
double standard you live by is un-American and divisive.
Still no answer to
the constitutional authorization for war with Afghanistan?
"Still no answer to the constitutional authorization for war with Afghanistan?"
I responded to this, you just choose not to take up the thread of that response. This is your prerogative, but don't whine to me about your own intellectual dishonesty.
Congress in passing the War Powers Act of 1972 acknowledged the need to grant leeway in the deployment of military assets prior to any Congressional approval for them.
That was Congress' prerogative to do, and the Constitution grants them this prerogative because it does not forbid such measures based on the changing nature over time of which things as how warfare is waged.
There is a definite problem with the Commander in Chief not abiding by the need to get this deployment vetted by Congress, thus I do acknowledge the need for Congress to rule on out involvement in Afghanistan.
What I am seeing here is you don't wish to discuss this, as it suits your own political agenda to ignore my words and to play DA with me.
That is why we are apparently at an impasse here with no real discussion happening.
And I have been doing most the talking and getting only clipped and unfriendly cross examination that ignores what I am saying.
"I repeat, what have the occupants of this nation done to us?"
Who said they did anything to us? I sure did not.
Conversely, what did you do to anyone to have to go out and oppress, occupy and enslave the people of your city of employment as part of the evil police?
You are playing, "So tell me, how long have you beaten your wife" games with me.
I make clear I support providing military aid that includes training and participation in operations by U.S. military cadre in brush fire wars that low intensity conflict is.
I also support conventionals being deployed to support this effort, as any military operation has a head to tail ratio to it where combat arms needs support units to handle the logistical chores of any operation.
We are there ostensibly to aid that country achieve stability and to get back on a sound social and economic footing. There is not a thing wrong with doing so.
Under President Obama we should have the cool heads and smarts to analyze the situation and alter the deployment based on how what is happening there is sized up.
Under President McCain, we have more of the same as we do with Bush and Cheney, a gutting of the prerogatives and mechanisms of Congress to reel in and alter or halt inappropriate military operations.
We are going to get one or the other as president JT. And we also are not going to suddenly become isolationists unwilling to provide training and material support to friends and allies who are dealing with insurgencies.
I fully agree more teeth and will to act should exist in Congress regarding the oversight of war making. The U.S. Constitution insists this be so, and we need to remember the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in instituting this check and balance regarding war making.
We need a return to Congress as the agency that rules on war making. You have no argument from me about that whatsoever. But I have to agree with Barack Obama that to unconditionally withdraw from Afghanistan is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Our mission there should be stabilization and training only, and I support Obama as the best man to remember and honor the fact that the military is not in existence merely top destroy and oppress; it is a there also to build and empower.
In this unit crest, along with the crossed arrows denoting unconventional warfare, and the De Oppresso Liber motto is the sword of righteousness which is also on the 'electric butter knife' shoulder patch of most S.F. units.
It means something. And it is to that meaning I am still dedicated as a former member of the United States Armed Forces.
"Well jeez...but...but....you said you supported military intervention in Afghanistan???"
I do not support a general invasion and conquest of Afghanistan. I do support giving them the means to establish domestic tranquility and to provide for the common welfare.
At this point in their history I sure don't see how this can be done without help in building the security and defense infrastructure that allows this to happen..
So yes, I see a defensible and rational role elements of SOCOM and those supporting Special Operations Command in helping build something that is necessary to establish a healthy, thriving and peaceful nation there.
"Why would you take this position if they haven't done anything to us???"
Did Operation Overlord happen because France did something to us? Think that maybe France might of been happy to see D-Day come?
With all due respect, perhaps it is you who has the problem visualizing the mission of the military there as training and building, not oppressing and destroying, not me.
"I suspect it's b/c you're an Obama cultist, and in your case, you support him b/c of white guilt related to wacky liberal politics."
Except I have no sense of 'white guilt,' I would never have gone into the military, would not own firearms, would be for abortion, and would accept other trappings of classic liberal dogma if I were a cultist or a liberal of the stripe you broad brush me as being here.
I disagree with Obama on abortion and regarding firearms, but then again, I would support Ron Paul over him despite Obama being far closer to many more of my personal political views then the Senator from Illinois is.
You see JT, I know full well I am never going to - or would really want for that matter - a candidate with whom I agree fully on every issue out there.
I submit that even if Obama were so anti-gun and pro abortion that's all he could talk about or act on, public opinion and Congress would hold him in check.
I see him as a man, not a black man, not a half black or half white man, and I see him as having human flaws and as much feet of clay as any other imperfect human being.
I find this buzz phrase you are fond of using amusing. But as I know it is election rhetoric meant to cheapen and belittle how and why people such as myself decide to vote for Barack Obama, I am not bothered by it, just amused.
I do support giving them the means to establish domestic tranquility and to provide for the common welfare.
Ah, nation building.....but who invited us, and what about the art of diplomacy? Isn't that Obama's solution to Iran? Why not here? And wouldn't a little domestic tranquility be a nice thing to establish in Harlem, New Orleans or South Central LA? Why in Afghanistan before America First? And how much will this cost? Shall we put it on the tab for future generations, or simply print FRNs?
Good post, but it is 10:45 AM here PDT and I have to do let my mundane little old life interfer with my world saving chore as an interlocutor here once more. (Life is so unfair, ain't it?) ;-D
I will be back as soon as I can to respond, so don't fret. I actually do care about responding to this.
Thanks for the discussion and dialog now going on in here, it is very much appreciated.
