Who's Marching Tomorrow?

When YOU have enough knowlege based on your expertise and training to know, beyond a reasonable doubt) that what you are going to do is illegal or immoral. Mai Lai, from what I know, fit and Lt. Calley was punished. Killing jews in WWII fits. Walking into a house in Iraq and just killing fits.

Walking through a building in Iraq right after a firefight, seeing someone move you thought was secured, and shooting them DEAD does NOT fit.

Being a british policeman and believing you are following a terrorist and trying to arrest them, they struggle, and you shoot them in the head does NOT fit.

Having lots of info you rely on that says Iraq has WMD's and is a threat and deciding to attack does NOT fit.

 

I agree, there are other countries that would be better to go in. Rwanda is not a good comparison to Iraq. (Bosnia or Somalia is). N. Korea or Iran scares me more. Here is an analogy though. You have to pick someone when there are so many. If you are surrounded by "bullies" in a school yard, you pick one you think you can take and punch him. Two things will happen, you will either get the s*it kicked out of you by the others, OR, if you are big enough and hit hard enough, the others will re-think their bullying ways.

I think we have see SOME of that (think Libya)

 

Yes, I would believe that. That's why I'm careful to only discuss work-related items that are Public Domain. NDA's are the same here as in the U.S. you know.

I gather from your little quote "secret trusts" you work in the financial services sector. That explains a lot. Thanks.

With your attitude, I find that highly unlikely. Unless you happen to be one of those folks who have such a split personality you have to live this weird alter ego life online.

Oh, popular money here at the office is still disenfranchised teenager living in his parents basement.

 

Karl:

I actually find that quote very disturbing. If I may paraphrase, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

We should only pick the "fights" - wars - we KNOW we will win?

That's very tricky. How do you ensure you really can "win" a war, especially if Escalation is involved? As far as conventional warfare, Iraq was a pushover in the first war, and they were an even bigger pushover in the recent one. But how are we handling things since the Commander In Chief declared "mission accomplished?"

So Bush should just have a public announcement to declare "we went into Iraq because we knew we would whup-nice person them reall good." Well, at least that would be refreshingly honest. None of this WMD bullsh** or "spreading democracy" garbage.

So the real reason a dangerous country like North Korea isn't invaded is due to the very real probability they would lob nuclear warheads down on Japan, China, and possibly the west coast of the United States? They wouldn't be a pushover like Iraq was?

Thing is, using the Rwandan example again, that would have been a cakewalk. Far easier than Iraq and the genocide may have been prevented. But no resources to speak of, not a very good "prize."

Want to know a dirty little secret? The U.S. could probably invade Canada and take it over without too much difficulty. No real Air Force to speak of, no nukes, rusty drydocked diesel-electric submarines, etc. Plenty of proven and valuable natural resources, especially energy resources.

I'd imagine all Dubya would have to do is cluster bomb Ottawa, Toronto, and Edmonton. The war would be over in 48 hours. Wouldn't need any interpreters either, just remember the handful who still use "eh?" really mean "huh?"

In all seriousness Karl, I find something about you very disturbing. It wasn't so much that quote about picking the fight you know you will win, it was that quote combined with your career.

 

Ah. I was waiting for that. The spoiled rich kid who got a car when he turned 16, who got a free college education, brings up the word "leech." The same kid who openly mocked anybody who was "dumb" enough to take orders from the National Guard or Army.

Since my background is industrial automation and process control, if the U.S. did invade I'd make sure every utility grid-tie and substation would somehow stop working. Every natural gas valving and pumping station would shut down.

Unlike the United States with ancient decrepit infrastructure, Canadian utilities are all modern and networked. No 4-20 mA discrete analog or God Help You 5-15 psi pneumatic control here. All that DeviceNet, ControlNet, ProfiBus, Foundation FieldBus control would start receiving remote shutdown commands, and remote Database Initialize commands.

Hey, you never did answer me when I brought up your quote about deriding those who join the National Guard or Army.

 

For the record:

1. Uh, WHO caused the pain and embarrassment of Abu Ghraib and its humiliation/quasi-torture?

2.-3. No, you've got your cause-and-effect backward. It DOES matter to most Americans if our participation in a war is "wrong". There was a window, starting under Kennedy in '62 and extending to '65, before anti-war sentiment started coalescing (around "teach-ins" and other education through the media) and asserting itself on the streets, where probably a majority of us either didn't care and/or know the facts, when we could have acted decisively and possibly "won".

But we were militarily inept, inappropriately using American might the only way(s) we knew how against a classic, well-organized guerilla effort. Their people were more motivated and were better fighters than our people and the ARVN.

Americans have little stomach for a war that can't be neatly "packaged" by their government, and progress toward victory shown within a few years. Our government under Johnson TRIED to "show progress" by means of the most laughable, primitive propaganda: the daily release of "body counts" to the media, always showing a US and South Vietnamese "kill ratio" vs. "the Communists" of at least 10 to 1.

When it was clear, by '67-'68, that we were either LOSING or, at best, sacrificing increasing thousands in a bottomless pit, Americans by then had learned that there was no real compelling reason(s) to be there, and the anti-war movement gained the upper hand. 1968 was the first year it can clearly be said that a notable lack of support for the Vietnam War had asserted itself on the home front.

This was after fully 5 years of first, confusion in the public mind, then somewhat hesitant support for the effort, but then disillusionment as our military failed to show progress and the majority lost patience.

Despite this, after Johnson himself "cut and ran", the military machine was in high gear, and Nixon thought he could succeed where Johnson had failed. So he dragged an unwilling country (courtesy of the draft, or the war effort would have collapsed much sooner) through another 5 years of needless casualties, throwing in the rape of Cambodia for good measure.

Ultimately, we lost because our military proved incapable of adapting to our enemy's superior tactics and will. When raining bombs on Hanoi and other cities, and incinerating whole villages with napalm didn't work as a last resort, Nixon's exit strategy consisted of stating that we had pretty much "strategized" and completed "Vietnamization", placing the primary burden on the demoralized ARVN rather than American forces, and negotiating our own way out.

Bush will mimic the same strategy---call it "Iraqization"---in retreating from his war. Iraq is not Vietnam, but the end results will look remarkably similar. Our military will have twice failed under Republican presidents who didn't have a clue as to the nature of the enemy, once with a strong Democrat assist.

 

You are reading too much into it. If you have multiple adversaries, you pick the one you think you would have the most success with.

Yes, N. Korea is more "dangerous" of a foe so we first try to "scare" them...then we act.

Rwanda is a mission of mercy...cannot be compared to Iraq. I am VERY angry we don't start with helping people being massacred first.

Uh, my CAREER taught me that. I handle all calls differently with the effort to WIN every time.

You are just loking at things from a different perspective so it is all through your own prism. I do not share your prism.