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:1749 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.
"Why would we waste the life of one American in Afghanistan, and under what constitutional authority is our military there?"
If the political, economic and social consequences of allowing an insurgency to be established is too high -- maybe their success would precipitate others in neighboring countries to try to emulate what they did, or maybe a situation where the insurgency is derived from an earlier insurgency we precipitated and nurtured to bedevil an entity such as the Former Soviet Union as is the case with the one in Afghanistan and it could be argued an obligation exists to set things right, or treaty or other relationship with another country that has an insurgency happening that generates a request to us for assistance in dealing with it.
As I said, the brush fire war called insurgency is always present somewhere in the world. Aid to deal with it should have Congressional oversight to it as should be the case with any and all military expenditure and deployment.
But with insurgency and low intensity conflict, the Executive Branch should be given leeway to deal with insurgency -- such as that granted in the War Powers Act that was prompted by the abuse of authority which gave us the illegal and immoral conflict we took part in in Indochina in the 50s-70s.
If they are of the size and scope of a situation like that existing in Afghanistan, after a set time period -- as was the original intention of the original War Powers Act -- Congress should always have the authority to end or endorse the military action as per the intention of the Founding Fathers in establishing the U.S. Constitution with checks and balances between the three main branches of government.
Only Congress should ever start a war like that in Iraq, but the special needs and situations involved with insurgency, and the wide continuum of response to it necessitate some leeway to always be given to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces to approve a response to it.
If handling an insurgency problem keeps it from precipitating into a larger war, or neighboring countries suffering the same sort of warfare because of success of an earlier one elsewhere, it can save U.S. lives by nipping things in the bud before things get so bad we have no alternative but to do something that involves more time, manpower, money and collateral damage that creates longtime resentments and scars in those affected most by the warfare.
It can be argued that as the conflict in Afghanistan has become more directly organized, run, and controlled by el Qaeda then the Taliban, that we dare not leave them ceding the area to their control because they simply will use this win to create more insurgency and asymmetrical operations (this is military jargon for terrorism) elsewhere.
At this point, it is cheaper in the long run to chop the head off the el Qaeda snake there then to see a resumption of undisrupted business as usual of building support and funding for training and development of improved tactics and techniques in conducting low intensity conflict and asymmetrical warfare in that part of the world.
I thought only Marines were brainwashed to this degree. The U.S. could solve their problems with the Arab world tomorrow if they wanted. Give Israel the old heave ho and get the fuck out of there. We should take a lesson from the French and Algeria. Eventually, those folks will get their shit together and force us out.
"I thought only Marines were brainwashed to this degree."
I took an Article 15 to Special Court Martial in 1977 as a member of 1/17th (ABN) Air Cav, 82nd Airborne Division because I am not thusly 'brainwashed.' (I won.)
The charge that I had flipped the U.S. Flag off during an awards ceremony at the 82nd Airborne Division Museum grounds emanated from a desire to give me several legal actions of the non-judicial kind and then to throw me out as unable to adapt to military life.
I then got out in 1980 after making it to the level of crew chief on a UH-1H helicopter making sergeant E-5 in the process because of my skill as a mechanic and crew member.
I discovered Special Forces while at a National Guard NCO school session at Camp Williams, UT. Utah has the first battalion of the 19th Special Forces (National Guard component).
I did not go for demolitions (engineer) or weapons, I went for MOS 18E, Special Operations Communication Sergeant. I was fascinated with the 'Free the Oppressed' (De Oppresso Liber) aspect of SF, and the training and empowerment missions they had.
I am no fan of the 'Rambo' type or any such Hollywood fiction. I joined because I liked the concept of empowering people to better help themselves.
I got out with only nine years active duty, because sadly, there are too many blood thirsty people everywhere in the military who are brain washed for blood as you speak of, and because I found the invasion of Panama to be a contrived for political reasons war.
Because of the nature of the mis-use of the military by neocons like Bush and Cheney, I want the obviously illegal war in Iraq ended, and I want the war in Afghanistan vetted on a Congressional level.
I have thought long and hard on this, and decided long ago that I don't wish to do a knee jerk reaction and act like those starting illegal wars and rashly judge the war in Afghanistan ultimately merely as a political backlash to those turning troops into whores for Halliburton for political reasons.
I know well that low intensity conflict such as that in Afghanistan is hard to judge at face value on what one sees in the media and with no real schooling in just exactly what Guerrilla Warfare is, how it works and why people go there.
Concern about Afghanistan is justified, but I want it clearly and rationally vetted before we quit our military involvement there.
If we can analyze and address the errors made there so far by conventional troops and train and build a stabilizing force that can end the perpetual warfare and cultural fratricide of that conflict so deeply set into that country's socio-political fabric, this is an incredibly great gift we can give the people of this country.
By the way, two terms of endearment for me while in the military were 'Mr. Specific' in Basic Combat Training (BCT) for saying "specifically speaking..." when trying to school a drill sergeant concerning hypothermia during a class on frost bite, frost nip and trench foot, and 'Spock' by my A team because I always used the five dollar word when a 1.17 cent one would do. I was never, ever considered a brainwashed Rambo for good reasons; I'm not.
"Concern about Afghanistan is justified, but I want it clearly and rationally vetted before we quit our military involvement there."
"If we can analyze and address the errors made there so far by conventional troops and train and build a stabilizing force that can end the perpetual warfare and cultural fratricide of that conflict so deeply set into that country's socio-political fabric, this is an incredibly great gift we can give the people of this country."
You might want to take into account that the last time the Afghans were conquered it was Ghengis Khan.
Sounds great. Where is the Constitutional mandate for your Crusade?
