Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Apathy at War's End
It's not surprising that the End Of The War has been met with little public reaction. No parties, no jubilation in the street, hardly a whimper. Six years into the Iraq war, the US President announces the date for the war's end. American troops will be in the country for nearly three more years. Reuters has reported that when the US "combat operation" ends, there will be still thirty to fifty thousand American soldiers in the country. They'll hang around until the deadline date the Iraqis gave them of New Years Eve 2011.
The US withdrawal looks very similar to the Australian one. Remember when we "pulled out" ? We left security guards, surveillance planes and even parked a warship off the coast! In spite of this most Australians think we're no longer participants. The US has given the similar lines to Australian Defence Minister Fitzgibbon, and declared it will not be in a war zone.
Reading Obama's words on Friday, you get the sense that the real transition is intended to be from a war fought by American to one fought by Iraqis. Not that this is anything new. Remember Operation Lightning? When Doug Wood was rescued and returned, the US publicity of the event, spruiked by now departing ASIO head O'Sullivan, was centred on the portrayal of a successful training of independent Iraq forces. Years later it looks like a few more years training are required, before Obama leaves Iraq to fight its own battles.
Here's what Obama had to say:
What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq’s streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq’s union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars. America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it.
Haven't we yet asked the Iraqis to carpe diem, step up to the plate in their own team colours and hit a few homers with their own bat? Yep. So why has Obama phrased the message in this way? Perhaps it's because it's his first time to do so, a message from a new Administration for Iraq to do as Bush's Team America requested?
Here was stupid little me thinking that a war ended when the bullets stopped flying and the soldiers went home. Nowadays you can just declare your troops to be in non-combat mode and leave them on the soil they invaded.
If there are three more years of this war left, why are even the Australians who realise the fallacies of the rhetoric simply sitting on their hands? Where's the call for the Aussie warship to come home, and the total withdrawal of Australian soldiers from the streets of Baghdad?
Did we simply get tired of protesting and move on with our lives? Iraq remains a country occupied with the assistance of our forces, and we obviously don't give a damn.
Like the US public, we've been told "It's over", and have believed. The trouble is that "it" is far from over. By the time the US truly withdraws from Iraq, that country and its allies will have occupied the country they have invaded for close to nine years!
New leadership or no, given that we blindly believed and followed the US propaganda justifying the invasion and occupation, should we be now believing that our embarrassment will end on a particular date just because Obama wrote it?
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Education is the future
“Your stance against education is bizarre and utterly ridiculous. Common sense (as in real life think), would dictate that for any number of careers (almost all of them), a level of education is needed.”
Paul Morrella, you need to read what I write, instead of just installing your ideological connotations onto it. I am all for education and believe it to be the main saviour of the future, when presented in the right way. But I do object to those who believe because they have been programmed into believing their bizarre education and outlook on life as being worthwhile, when the viewable facts show the total opposite. Just count up the number of lawyers in politics and then collate their outcomes, I think you'll find they all fail miserably. We should do away with the current legal system and bring in a real justice system, not one which is purely for the rich and elitists of society.
Justice should not be controlled by the amount of money or social influence you have, one look at the justice system which is fully controlled by the legal profession and you will see it is a complete failure to the average person and society in general. That's reflected in the political system which seems to be awash with lawyers, all out of control and inept.
I don't get it
Alga Kavanagh: "Being a lawyer only qualifies you to be a fool when it comes to real life."
What rot.
A lawyer (depends on the particular person) may or may not know anymore about "real life" than your local bus driver.
Your stance against education is bizarre and utterly ridiculous. Common sense (as in real life think), would dictate that for any number of careers (almost all of them), a level of education is needed.
If you ever need any major surgery just give me a call. Do I know anything about medicine? No. Which should make me your perfect candidate.
Most likely you just believe in on the job training (which happens in any case). Nothing wrong with that in itself. The factor against it is of course time and resources. Education gives the basic grounding for one's preferred profession. The basic grounding is essential in many professions, including law.
Do I agree with people becoming politicians with only formal education at their disposal? No
Do I agree with people being called law professors without ever having formally entered a Court? No.
Do I think many politicians are inexperienced for the job requirement? Yes.
Do I think lawyers shouldn't be excluded from politics? No.
Do I think one occupation is more relevant than another occupation for true political success? No.
Morals and ethics
Eliot Ramsey: "IIt requires, obviously, some morally principled, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, and anti-Christian / Jewish revolutionary marxist type to take a defiant stand against resource greed."
Close, but you still don't get it, try another merry go round for a change. Morals are an ideological concept, I prefer ethics. Marxism is a failed ideology, so you can't be anti fascist and be a Marxist or morally principled, as moral principles are all about suppressive control. But you are learning, slowly.
The current approach to resources is total stupidity, as it leaves nothing for the future but devastation. Both Venezuela and Sudan follow the same god, so naturally being under the control of god's despots, they are places of violence and suppression,. Something we see anywhere controlled by ideology and in particular religious ideology.
War is the only weapon ideologists have, they have no truth or realised positive and progressive outcomes, so they have no other recourse but to war.
Throughout history ideologists only really get their way when they suppress and engage in war. Realistically and historically, in the end they always lose. Now that's what I call illogical logic, but what else can you expect from those who put all their faith in illusionary delusion, which is all ideology really is, as we see by all its outcomes.
Radical Islam the real winner
Being a lawyer only qualifies you to be a fool when it comes to real life. Obama is just the same are Rudd, Howard, Bush or Turnbull, no substance just programmed education and the ability to form words to fool the unthinking rabble.
As for Iraq, what else can you expect, we shouldn't have any troops there and the same goes for Afghanistan. All it’s done is turn the surrounding area's against us and created more terrorism. No matter what you think of Saddam Hussein, he at least kept the country stable, now the only outcome is take over by radical Islam. The same is happening in all the region because of the warmongering, economic and resource greed of the Christian / Jewish neo fascists. Pakistan is next, it's about to be taken over by radical Islam. Then we'll have radical Islam in control of nuclear weapons in a number of countries, they along with their Abrahamic Christian and Jewish brothers, will not hesitate to destroy their perceived opposition, no matter the consequences, They do believe they all go to heaven in some elevated form when they fight in the name of their god.
Obama, like Rudd, is all froth and bubble, but no useful substance in any way. A war only ends when all the troops have gone home, until then it's still a war. Islamists have learnt a great deal from the conflict in Iraq and have changed their approaches to suit the situation, the USA and its allies haven't changed a thing. When the troops go, it will be take over time and then we may see a coalition of radical Islamic nuclear countries holding the west to ransom by denying them oil.
Radical Islam the real winner - thanks to the Radical Left
Alga Kavanagh: "The same is happening in all the region because of the warmongering, economic and resource greed of the Christian / Jewish neo fascists."
It requires, obviously, some morally principled, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, and anti-Christian / Jewish revolutionary marxist type to take a defiant stand against resource greed:
Now, what would Baby Jesus do?
Nope. Probably not that.
Seems a clear case
Paul Walter: "Some "empty vessel" when he's reached the exalted position of a law professor at the world's must prestigious university as still a relatively young man."
If I want to read a great novel, I'd choose a Mark Twain or Ernest Hemingway say. Neither were Harvard English professors. In fact it would take a brave current English professor (anywhere in the world) to state, they themselves, are more a practised novelist. So what's your point?
Obama isn't a Law professor.
Ed David R: however, Chicago Uni Law School states: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
Obama has also only ever been a politician. We can't judge him based on any other previous profession.
No.
These people were put into the position to achieve something positive (their own advertising). If they felt the position "impossible", they should've allowed someone else an attempt. Thus, they're entitled to be judged on their achievements. Or in this case, lack thereof.
Withholding judgement / plausible deniability
Paul Morrella, so Obama is an "empty vessel", eh?
Some "empty vessel" when he's reached the exalted position of a law professor at the world's must prestigious university as still a relatively young man
No. He's like Rudd. He has been dumped into an impossible situation, to try and sort a mess left by the genuine cretins who preceded him, buggering manageable situations inherited a decade ago into the current fearful global economic, foreign affairs and ecological combined, botch.
The rise and rise
Being cynical of Obama is a standard of basic intelligence Or at least signs mild retardation isn't present. His election should be a sociological study one day. I didn't predict it - boy how wrong was I.
The man is an empty vessel (I sometimes think he was invented in a lab) who seemingly steals the thoughts of those he speaks to, and reflects them back into them. If he sold cars, GM wouldn't be in anywhere near the difficulty it now is. His election made me finally understand how those ridiculous Nigerian letter scams are successful. If the truth be told, there isn't a previous American generation that would've ever fallen for him.
The man's election campaign was classic. It didn't even pretend to treat voters as anything but mindless dolts. I still don't know what the point of any of his babbling speeches actually was. I was in a constant state of WTF???
What I saw was a campaign campaign combining the 1920's How To Win Friends And Influence People with The West Wing. That's truly how cynical it all was. That it was successful still amazes me. Even keeping in mind how hopeless the Republicans were.
How do we rid ourselves from this man? Give most people will never admit to being conned (they see it as a mistake so therefore a personal character fault), we desperately need something that people can pin directly on him. Hence, absolving any personal blame, and giving a green light for kicking him to the curb.
Apathy
QED