Agreed. I understand, but this enemy needs no particular encouragement, as you know. They hated us before the war and they will hate us after the war. Americans can't let the fact that we are fighting a war prevent us from insisting that our politicians use our military smartly. Our military already won the war with Iraq. We achieved our stated goals and freed the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. So what did the grateful Iraqis do? They sacked their own country, blamed it on us and have been merrily killing US troops and each other ever since. US presence has not stopped or slowed the situation. What if the Rags never form a democracy and just keep up the guerrilla civil war that has been going on for 1,000 years? We can't babysit them forever. We can force them to accept responsibility--province by province, agency by agency--by leaving them with it. But what is the mission at this point, Salty? How exactly do we win this occupation? I think what needs to happen now is for these friggin' raghead's to get their chit together and quit expecting us to do it for them. That's their social and political problem and there are no beaches to assault or battalions for our Marines to destroy that will make this happen. If the goat-smelling, rug merchants were yearning for freedom, then why didn't they use this insurgent energy to overthrow Saddam? They are making us the bogeyman for everything they hate about themselves and they can't do it if we ain't there. I think the Rags are the major problem in this occupation mess and if they won't cooperate with us then we win by just leaving them to wallow in their own chit. Let them kill each other until they settle things. If they continue to mess with us after we leave, we can bomb the place til they see the light. Our troops can't hold their hands forever, they don't have anything we need, and we have other pressing military needs on the horizon. I make one major exception. The Kurds are different, they have cooperated with us, ain't killing us, and are worthy of our protection and support, but the vast majority of Sunnis and Shiites . . . fug 'em.
a friend of mine's dad wrote a op-ed for the new york times and when i read it has the word "smartly" in it. and i thought that was weird because that word sounds dumb to me and i would only use it to describe some old school guy who had just left his haberdasher and was dressed smartly for the white tie event. i wouldnt use it in the intelligence sense. so when i asked about it, it turned out the times had edited his piece and added that phrasing. and he agreed it sounded dumb. how frustrating is that?
martin, do haberdashers have a patron saint? of course they do: * Louis IX * Michael the Archangel http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pst00342.htm
You may substitute the synonym "intelligently" if you feel it offers a connotation you prefer. :grin:
i didnt think your use of the word made it sound like your sentence was written dumbly, i just sometimes like to babble about irrelevant things.
