http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/07/us-secretly-releasing-taliban-fighters-report-says/
catch and release in full
catch and release in full
- Thread starter opshin556
- Start date
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
Like so many hunters that are found in the back woods, the US should be partaking in more "Shoot-n-Release".
Finally, an ethical use of the doctrine!
Like so many hunters that are found in the back woods, the US should be partaking in more "Shoot-n-Release".
Finally, an ethical use of the doctrine!
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like so many hunters that are found in the back woods, the US should be partaking in more "Shoot-n-Release".
</div></div>
There's a reason it's being done in secret, i.e. you don't want to kill the people who by their actions justify your agenda.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like so many hunters that are found in the back woods, the US should be partaking in more "Shoot-n-Release".
</div></div>
There's a reason it's being done in secret, i.e. you don't want to kill the people who by their actions justify your agenda.
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
well...they did promise not to kill anyone.........
well...they did promise not to kill anyone.........
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
Did you catch the link on left? Paying the jihadi $160,000/month for protection against himself? Hmmm...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/0...?intcmp=related
Did you catch the link on left? Paying the jihadi $160,000/month for protection against himself? Hmmm...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/0...?intcmp=related
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UKDslayer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you catch the link on left? Paying the jihadi $160,000/month for protection against himself? Hmmm...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/0...?intcmp=related </div></div>
I read both articles and alli have to say is WOW!..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UKDslayer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you catch the link on left? Paying the jihadi $160,000/month for protection against himself? Hmmm...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/0...?intcmp=related </div></div>
I read both articles and alli have to say is WOW!..
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
Typically prisoners of war are released after a war is over and there is no longer a threat from the opposition force. Am I missing something here?
Typically prisoners of war are released after a war is over and there is no longer a threat from the opposition force. Am I missing something here?
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silver_Bullet_00</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typically prisoners of war are released after a war is over and there is no longer a threat from the opposition force. Am I missing something here? </div></div>
Yes you are, THEY ARE STILL A THREAT !!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silver_Bullet_00</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typically prisoners of war are released after a war is over and there is no longer a threat from the opposition force. Am I missing something here? </div></div>
Yes you are, THEY ARE STILL A THREAT !!
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tac22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silver_Bullet_00</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typically prisoners of war are released after a war is over and there is no longer a threat from the opposition force. Am I missing something here? </div></div>
Yes you are, THEY ARE STILL A THREAT !! </div></div>
If you read between the lines, that's exactly the point I was trying to make!! We are still at war and there is a threat!
In the past we kept POW's until a war was over and there was no threat!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tac22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Silver_Bullet_00</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typically prisoners of war are released after a war is over and there is no longer a threat from the opposition force. Am I missing something here? </div></div>
Yes you are, THEY ARE STILL A THREAT !! </div></div>
If you read between the lines, that's exactly the point I was trying to make!! We are still at war and there is a threat!
In the past we kept POW's until a war was over and there was no threat!
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
Should be Piece by piece like they do to our men
Should be Piece by piece like they do to our men
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
first kadafi them, then release them...like a bin laden in the sea.
first kadafi them, then release them...like a bin laden in the sea.
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
I think it's time to stop treating captive insurgents as if they were POW's. They don't treat ours that way, and besides, a POW is a unformed combatant representing a national fighting force, not some local gangs of armed theocratic anarchists.
I recognize that adopting inhumane policies lowers us to their level; and the implictions trouble me deeply. But I am more deeply troubled by the depth of the holes we dig ourselves into by not doing so.
Warfare is either limited or it is not. What is limited at one end of the chain of command may not be quite so at the other. As long as both ends can relate on a personal basis to the realities their rulings present at the sharp end, I think we will be OK; and I firmly believe in the rule of law and a military that is subject to civilian leadership.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the civilian leadership has neither experience nor the mindset to comprehend the consequences of their lofty and altruistic approach to waging warfare,
War is hell. It's supposed to be. It's the direct consequence of the failure of civilized and humane discourse.
It needs to be as horrid, inhumane, uncivilized, and brutal as imaginable; so people will be more preferably driven to choose to resolve their conflicts by less drastic measures.
All that rendering warfare humane and civilized does is to make it less abhorrent. There is the added consequence that prisoners get kept for reasons that become illogical, and get treated by means they can be even more illogical.
I don't have an answer, but I think there are measures that can help.
I think a large part of the prisoner issue stems from there being so many of them. I think a lot of them would rather fight to the death than be taken prisoner. Maybe helping them achieve that end with more certainty is not such a bad isea. More of that might even lead to a more certain resolution the paradise and virgins quandry.
With respect to the more humane among us, I would only take prisoners for their tactical and strategic intelligence value. Once that intelligence value has been harvested, I would release all of them, without any prejudice or discrimination (and I would only hold them briefly for this purpose), into their bretheren's arms with a significant cash bonus and very loud and widespread thanks for their valuable assistance. Let their 'friends' handle the rest. Might a very cost effective solution, and should both reduce the handwringing and also better reveal the true quality their solidarity with their brothers in arms.
Aside from these few smaller measures, I cannot formulate a cohesive and effective policy that serves both the ends of an effective combat strategy, and also serves the ethical demands of the more civilized and humane amongst us.
I doubt that even Solomon could achieve that hat trick.
Greg
I think it's time to stop treating captive insurgents as if they were POW's. They don't treat ours that way, and besides, a POW is a unformed combatant representing a national fighting force, not some local gangs of armed theocratic anarchists.
I recognize that adopting inhumane policies lowers us to their level; and the implictions trouble me deeply. But I am more deeply troubled by the depth of the holes we dig ourselves into by not doing so.
Warfare is either limited or it is not. What is limited at one end of the chain of command may not be quite so at the other. As long as both ends can relate on a personal basis to the realities their rulings present at the sharp end, I think we will be OK; and I firmly believe in the rule of law and a military that is subject to civilian leadership.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the civilian leadership has neither experience nor the mindset to comprehend the consequences of their lofty and altruistic approach to waging warfare,
War is hell. It's supposed to be. It's the direct consequence of the failure of civilized and humane discourse.
It needs to be as horrid, inhumane, uncivilized, and brutal as imaginable; so people will be more preferably driven to choose to resolve their conflicts by less drastic measures.
All that rendering warfare humane and civilized does is to make it less abhorrent. There is the added consequence that prisoners get kept for reasons that become illogical, and get treated by means they can be even more illogical.
I don't have an answer, but I think there are measures that can help.
I think a large part of the prisoner issue stems from there being so many of them. I think a lot of them would rather fight to the death than be taken prisoner. Maybe helping them achieve that end with more certainty is not such a bad isea. More of that might even lead to a more certain resolution the paradise and virgins quandry.
With respect to the more humane among us, I would only take prisoners for their tactical and strategic intelligence value. Once that intelligence value has been harvested, I would release all of them, without any prejudice or discrimination (and I would only hold them briefly for this purpose), into their bretheren's arms with a significant cash bonus and very loud and widespread thanks for their valuable assistance. Let their 'friends' handle the rest. Might a very cost effective solution, and should both reduce the handwringing and also better reveal the true quality their solidarity with their brothers in arms.
Aside from these few smaller measures, I cannot formulate a cohesive and effective policy that serves both the ends of an effective combat strategy, and also serves the ethical demands of the more civilized and humane amongst us.
I doubt that even Solomon could achieve that hat trick.
Greg
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I recognize that adopting inhumane policies lowers us to their level; and the implictions trouble me deeply. But I am more deeply troubled by the depth of the holes we dig ourselves into by not doing so.</div></div>
Prostituting our ideals to fight an endless crusade is a fate far worse than any Islamic Bogeyman.
There's no right way to do the WRONG THING.
Rule #1 when in a Hole: Stop Digging
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I recognize that adopting inhumane policies lowers us to their level; and the implictions trouble me deeply. But I am more deeply troubled by the depth of the holes we dig ourselves into by not doing so.</div></div>
Prostituting our ideals to fight an endless crusade is a fate far worse than any Islamic Bogeyman.
There's no right way to do the WRONG THING.
Rule #1 when in a Hole: Stop Digging
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
I admire your altruism.
Nobody's saying we need to do what you term as the wrong thing. My commnents are an effort to get folks thinking about what's happening now, and at what cost.
As it stands, we send our best and brightest young people to do do battle with people who literally cannot comprehend our reasoning.
So, if we can't convince them, and we mustn't kill them; what would you have us do?
The world awaits your brilliant and appropriate solution.
While everybody's waiting, I have better things to be doing on a Mother' Day than to argue semantics and/or ethics (again) with you.
Caio, 'Hide
Greg
I admire your altruism.
Nobody's saying we need to do what you term as the wrong thing. My commnents are an effort to get folks thinking about what's happening now, and at what cost.
As it stands, we send our best and brightest young people to do do battle with people who literally cannot comprehend our reasoning.
So, if we can't convince them, and we mustn't kill them; what would you have us do?
The world awaits your brilliant and appropriate solution.
While everybody's waiting, I have better things to be doing on a Mother' Day than to argue semantics and/or ethics (again) with you.
Caio, 'Hide
Greg
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
"take no prisoners" solves the problem
"take no prisoners" solves the problem
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So, if we can't convince them, and we mustn't kill them; what would you have us do?
The world awaits your brilliant and appropriate solution.
While eveybody's waiting, I have better things to be doing on a Mother' Day than to argue semantics and/or ethics (again) with you.
Caio, 'Hide
Greg </div></div>
"Convince" the Afghans of what? That we're here to "help."
That a Jeffersonian Republic is just around the corner with a little help from the U.S.?
It's clear you've no basis for defending these endless crusades, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for a solution.
But since you've asked, I'm happy to oblige.
Here's your answer, a far more appetizing choice than wiping your arse with the Constitution.
DECLARE VICTORY and bring the troops home.
Other than insuring a steady and predicable flow of opium out of Afghanistan, what are "we" accomplishing.
When you're able to honestly answer that question, maybe then real discourse can follow.
Happy Mothers Day, and you can thank my mom for teaching me the "brilliant" solution known as The Golden Rule.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So, if we can't convince them, and we mustn't kill them; what would you have us do?
The world awaits your brilliant and appropriate solution.
While eveybody's waiting, I have better things to be doing on a Mother' Day than to argue semantics and/or ethics (again) with you.
Caio, 'Hide
Greg </div></div>
"Convince" the Afghans of what? That we're here to "help."
That a Jeffersonian Republic is just around the corner with a little help from the U.S.?
It's clear you've no basis for defending these endless crusades, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for a solution.
But since you've asked, I'm happy to oblige.
Here's your answer, a far more appetizing choice than wiping your arse with the Constitution.
DECLARE VICTORY and bring the troops home.
Other than insuring a steady and predicable flow of opium out of Afghanistan, what are "we" accomplishing.
When you're able to honestly answer that question, maybe then real discourse can follow.
Happy Mothers Day, and you can thank my mom for teaching me the "brilliant" solution known as The Golden Rule.
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
I say that we castrate each and every one of these guys that we turn loose so that they can't reproduce (hence solving the problem of creating even more little jihadists).
And then we do this: [img:left]http://my.spill.com/photo/ill-see-your-jihad?context=latest[/img]
I say that we castrate each and every one of these guys that we turn loose so that they can't reproduce (hence solving the problem of creating even more little jihadists).
And then we do this: [img:left]http://my.spill.com/photo/ill-see-your-jihad?context=latest[/img]
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Convince" the Afghans of what? That we're here to "help."
That a Jeffersonian Republic is just around the corner with a little help from the U.S.?
It's clear you've no basis for defending these endless crusades, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for a solution.
But since you've asked, I'm happy to oblige.
Here's your answer, a far more appetizing choice than wiping your arse with the Constitution.
DECLARE VICTORY and bring the troops home.
Other than insuring a steady and predicable flow of opium out of Afghanistan, what are "we" accomplishing.
When you're able to honestly answer that question, maybe then real discourse can follow.
Happy Mothers Day, and you can thank my mom for teaching me the "brilliant" solution known as The Golden Rule.</div></div>
I think the tone of your response simply verifies my points. Truly brilliant and appropiate I might add. Also, if this is the way your Mom taught you to speak politely with others, then I am forced to conclude that we come from different cultures.
I was in a war once, and they declared victory and walked out on the Vietnamese. That was clearly such a stellar event, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure my buddies who died over there would have been so proud. As for the current conflicts, forgive me if I refuse to call them crusades, My friends and colleagues who died in the WTC attacks might see things differently from you, if they were here to ask. It's not about the opium; not for me, anyway.
Happy Mothers' Day.
Greg
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Convince" the Afghans of what? That we're here to "help."
That a Jeffersonian Republic is just around the corner with a little help from the U.S.?
It's clear you've no basis for defending these endless crusades, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for a solution.
But since you've asked, I'm happy to oblige.
Here's your answer, a far more appetizing choice than wiping your arse with the Constitution.
DECLARE VICTORY and bring the troops home.
Other than insuring a steady and predicable flow of opium out of Afghanistan, what are "we" accomplishing.
When you're able to honestly answer that question, maybe then real discourse can follow.
Happy Mothers Day, and you can thank my mom for teaching me the "brilliant" solution known as The Golden Rule.</div></div>
I think the tone of your response simply verifies my points. Truly brilliant and appropiate I might add. Also, if this is the way your Mom taught you to speak politely with others, then I am forced to conclude that we come from different cultures.
I was in a war once, and they declared victory and walked out on the Vietnamese. That was clearly such a stellar event, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure my buddies who died over there would have been so proud. As for the current conflicts, forgive me if I refuse to call them crusades, My friends and colleagues who died in the WTC attacks might see things differently from you, if they were here to ask. It's not about the opium; not for me, anyway.
Happy Mothers' Day.
Greg
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
I drive around this shitty country and deal with these shitheads on a daily basis. I would say the only way to declare victory would be to line every last person in this place up and put a bullet in each and every one of them over the age of 16..... (the russians might have been on to something)
I am pretty sure when the world does a nuclear fiasco these people won't even know the difference. They don't have anything so there is really nothing to take away from them. People living in the modern world will start to ravage and murder for a meal because it cannot be delivered from a call from a phone or from a drive through window.
I drive around this shitty country and deal with these shitheads on a daily basis. I would say the only way to declare victory would be to line every last person in this place up and put a bullet in each and every one of them over the age of 16..... (the russians might have been on to something)
I am pretty sure when the world does a nuclear fiasco these people won't even know the difference. They don't have anything so there is really nothing to take away from them. People living in the modern world will start to ravage and murder for a meal because it cannot be delivered from a call from a phone or from a drive through window.
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it's time to stop treating captive insurgents as if they were POW's. They don't treat ours that way, and besides, a POW is a unformed combatant representing a national fighting force, not some local gangs of armed theocratic anarchists.
I recognize that adopting inhumane policies lowers us to their level; and the implictions trouble me deeply. But I am more deeply troubled by the depth of the holes we dig ourselves into by not doing so.
Warfare is either limited or it is not. What is limited at one end of the chain of command may not be quite so at the other. As long as both ends can relate on a personal basis to the realities their rulings present at the sharp end, I think we will be OK; and I firmly believe in the rule of law and a military that is subject to civilian leadership.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the civilian leadership has neither experience nor the mindset to comprehend the consequences of their lofty and altruistic approach to waging warfare,
War is hell. It's supposed to be. It's the direct consequence of the failure of civilized and humane discourse.
It needs to be as horrid, inhumane, uncivilized, and brutal as imaginable; so people will be more preferably driven to choose to resolve their conflicts by less drastic measures.
All that rendering warfare humane and civilized does is to make it less abhorrent. There is the added consequence that prisoners get kept for reasons that become illogical, and get treated by means they can be even more illogical.
I don't have an answer, but I think there are measures that can help.
I think a large part of the prisoner issue stems from there being so many of them. I think a lot of them would rather fight to the death than be taken prisoner. Maybe helping them achieve that end with more certainty is not such a bad isea. More of that might even lead to a more certain resolution the paradise and virgins quandry.
With respect to the more humane among us, I would only take prisoners for their tactical and strategic intelligence value. Once that intelligence value has been harvested, I would release all of them, without any prejudice or discrimination (and I would only hold them briefly for this purpose), into their bretheren's arms with a significant cash bonus and very loud and widespread thanks for their valuable assistance. Let their 'friends' handle the rest. Might a very cost effective solution, and should both reduce the handwringing and also better reveal the true quality their solidarity with their brothers in arms.
Aside from these few smaller measures, I cannot formulate a cohesive and effective policy that serves both the ends of an effective combat strategy, and also serves the ethical demands of the more civilized and humane amongst us.
I doubt that even Solomon could achieve that hat trick.
Greg </div></div>
Greg our civilian leadership doesn't have experience our prior generations or leaders had. JFK, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, George H W Bush, all experienced and knew what war was like. In fact all Presidents from Truman to HW Bush where all Veterans. Clinton was the first Non Vet President post WWII.
It seems now, that young liberal American voters look down at Military Service when running for office. Young people are the future, and I am scared for future for my children.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it's time to stop treating captive insurgents as if they were POW's. They don't treat ours that way, and besides, a POW is a unformed combatant representing a national fighting force, not some local gangs of armed theocratic anarchists.
I recognize that adopting inhumane policies lowers us to their level; and the implictions trouble me deeply. But I am more deeply troubled by the depth of the holes we dig ourselves into by not doing so.
Warfare is either limited or it is not. What is limited at one end of the chain of command may not be quite so at the other. As long as both ends can relate on a personal basis to the realities their rulings present at the sharp end, I think we will be OK; and I firmly believe in the rule of law and a military that is subject to civilian leadership.
The problem here, as I see it, is that the civilian leadership has neither experience nor the mindset to comprehend the consequences of their lofty and altruistic approach to waging warfare,
War is hell. It's supposed to be. It's the direct consequence of the failure of civilized and humane discourse.
It needs to be as horrid, inhumane, uncivilized, and brutal as imaginable; so people will be more preferably driven to choose to resolve their conflicts by less drastic measures.
All that rendering warfare humane and civilized does is to make it less abhorrent. There is the added consequence that prisoners get kept for reasons that become illogical, and get treated by means they can be even more illogical.
I don't have an answer, but I think there are measures that can help.
I think a large part of the prisoner issue stems from there being so many of them. I think a lot of them would rather fight to the death than be taken prisoner. Maybe helping them achieve that end with more certainty is not such a bad isea. More of that might even lead to a more certain resolution the paradise and virgins quandry.
With respect to the more humane among us, I would only take prisoners for their tactical and strategic intelligence value. Once that intelligence value has been harvested, I would release all of them, without any prejudice or discrimination (and I would only hold them briefly for this purpose), into their bretheren's arms with a significant cash bonus and very loud and widespread thanks for their valuable assistance. Let their 'friends' handle the rest. Might a very cost effective solution, and should both reduce the handwringing and also better reveal the true quality their solidarity with their brothers in arms.
Aside from these few smaller measures, I cannot formulate a cohesive and effective policy that serves both the ends of an effective combat strategy, and also serves the ethical demands of the more civilized and humane amongst us.
I doubt that even Solomon could achieve that hat trick.
Greg </div></div>
Greg our civilian leadership doesn't have experience our prior generations or leaders had. JFK, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, George H W Bush, all experienced and knew what war was like. In fact all Presidents from Truman to HW Bush where all Veterans. Clinton was the first Non Vet President post WWII.
It seems now, that young liberal American voters look down at Military Service when running for office. Young people are the future, and I am scared for future for my children.
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
I think the day when the Veteran's viewpoints carried any political weight are gone, and may not come back for a long time, if at all.
I try to be open about things like that, after all I can't predict the future any better then the next bloke. Doesn't do much for that uneasy feeling and those rising hackles, though.
As a generation, I give mine about a 5 out of 10; we were neither outstandngly good nor outstandingly bad. Whatever the next generations have to deal with, they will have us to thank/blame for it.
I wish we could have done a better job, but there may be some reasons for why it came out this way.
As I alluded above, many of us who came out of The 'Nam got mightily riled at our government after they brokered away every damned accomplishemnt we tried to make over there. Friends and relatives who got wasted over there ended up doing it for damned little on the return side of the equation. For one, I lost my trust in my government. I was far from alone. Many still feel that way.
So for us, getting involved in that selfsame government was an exercise in cynicism. We left the door open for the folks who gave us the queer eye and had other plans for America. Today they are the stablishment, and gun control, for an instance, is only a smaller part of their plans for a better America. They are as established as the government that brokered our sacrifice for a smarmy 'peace in our time' hollow victory, and they rather clearly never embraced the lessons the previous bunch made my fellows pay so dearly to learn
They are doing it but I blame me and mine for letting them get where they can use that bully pulpit. In this case, the words 'bully' and 'pulpit' couldn't be more appropriate. If it's a crusade you seek, you need look no further than Foggy Bottom.
I wish my descendants luck with this world, but I remain as much a cynic as I ever was. I do not fear for the future of my Children and Grandchildren. They are at least as capable as I ever was, and I have always made my mind clear and the lessons I learned so dearly understood to/by them. The best I can say is that their lives' challenges will be different from mine, and I give them a better than even chance of swinging their world into a better direction than we did with ours.
Greg
I think the day when the Veteran's viewpoints carried any political weight are gone, and may not come back for a long time, if at all.
I try to be open about things like that, after all I can't predict the future any better then the next bloke. Doesn't do much for that uneasy feeling and those rising hackles, though.
As a generation, I give mine about a 5 out of 10; we were neither outstandngly good nor outstandingly bad. Whatever the next generations have to deal with, they will have us to thank/blame for it.
I wish we could have done a better job, but there may be some reasons for why it came out this way.
As I alluded above, many of us who came out of The 'Nam got mightily riled at our government after they brokered away every damned accomplishemnt we tried to make over there. Friends and relatives who got wasted over there ended up doing it for damned little on the return side of the equation. For one, I lost my trust in my government. I was far from alone. Many still feel that way.
So for us, getting involved in that selfsame government was an exercise in cynicism. We left the door open for the folks who gave us the queer eye and had other plans for America. Today they are the stablishment, and gun control, for an instance, is only a smaller part of their plans for a better America. They are as established as the government that brokered our sacrifice for a smarmy 'peace in our time' hollow victory, and they rather clearly never embraced the lessons the previous bunch made my fellows pay so dearly to learn
They are doing it but I blame me and mine for letting them get where they can use that bully pulpit. In this case, the words 'bully' and 'pulpit' couldn't be more appropriate. If it's a crusade you seek, you need look no further than Foggy Bottom.
I wish my descendants luck with this world, but I remain as much a cynic as I ever was. I do not fear for the future of my Children and Grandchildren. They are at least as capable as I ever was, and I have always made my mind clear and the lessons I learned so dearly understood to/by them. The best I can say is that their lives' challenges will be different from mine, and I give them a better than even chance of swinging their world into a better direction than we did with ours.
Greg
Re: US releasing Taliban fighters
why we dont trade our deathrow inmates for them. we fry the towelheads and release the phsychos from here into talibania to do what they will.
why we dont trade our deathrow inmates for them. we fry the towelheads and release the phsychos from here into talibania to do what they will.
Similar threads
