About dusty1215


Gender:
female
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
March 09, 2009
Profile Views:
21328
Blog Views:
75671
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Bond's record-setting baseball will go into the HOF with an asterisk.
"distract, delude, amuse and insulate us."
People trust the Democrats more than they trust Republicans.
Are you smarter than the average American? Test your knowledge of the news..
Neo-Nazi's go after the Jena 6
Feds investigating Blackwater USA for weapons smuggling
The death of the History of Civilization…
The good General couldn't accomplish his first job in Iraq, why should we expect anything better out of his second stint there?
Support Debra Bowen's decision regarding Diebold voting machines
Coast Guard's Deepwater project price skyrockets
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
December 09
January 10
February 10
March 10
Places on the Web for your Progressive enjoyment.
Its My Right to be Left of the Center
Bring it On!
Sirens Chronicles
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


dusty1215 - > Dusty's View of Life -> Exporting democracy with bullets and bombs.
Exporting democracy with bullets and bombs.
This is my reasoning for why none of these conflicts work. I am sure people will be able to "shoot" holes in my argument, but that matters not.

The "bad guys" for want of a better term, do not fight a traditional war. This fact was painfully obvious in Vietnam.

You can not kill a thought, idea or belief system with weapons of war..you can only kill people. The whole idea of exporting our brand of democracy with bombs, bullets and thousands of soldiers is a ridiculous assumption being made by men who have never been to war. Not one of the asshats currently attempting this baloney has ever fought in a war.

Eisenhower was a soldier first and a President second. I think that was perhaps a good thing. He saw first hand what war can and can not accomplish, and that was fighting a traditional war where the enemy wears a uniform and carries a gun. Eisenhower's parents were both pacifists but did not object to him entering West Point. He went on to become a military leader and the president that ended the Korean conflict by advocating negtiotiations between the warring factions. Eisenhower had grand plans to end the cold war with Russia via talking but when the Russians shot down a spyplane, they said fudge it, and Nikita Khrushchev never did have Eisenhower visit Russia to continue the talks and the rest, as they say, is history. Eisenhower also kept our troops out of Vietnam, he was totally against entering that country.

This final tidbit of info on our only Republican president to advocate negotiations over armed conflict, its from Wiki: "On January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his final televised speech from the Oval Office. In his farewell speech to the nation, Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces. He described the Cold War saying: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Our liberty is another man's hell on earth. Our liberty should not be shoved down the throats of people that do not wish to see it bloom and prosper. We can not make the world over in our image, and who are we to demand that our life is the best of all worlds and everyone who believes different should be wiped off the face of the earth? In order to bring our brand of democracy to the people of the Middle East we will need to use genocide..are all you folks that buy into the GWOT prepared to use that tactic? Are you prepared to kill an entire country of people because they will not bow down to our brand of freedom? Because if you are..

I want no part of it.

I have been reading alot about Dwight Eisenhower recently, trying to find out how a life-long military man could be so good at trying to bring peace through talk and negotiations. I wanted to know why he warned us about the monster known as the "Military Industrial Complex".

I think its very simple..he went to war, he lead the charge and he knew, in the end, that war only kills people..it doesn't kill an idea, thought or a belief.

Are we trying to kill people or a ideal in the Middle East? Bombs and bullets will not work on the latter. A republican president figured that out..after he went to war time and time again as a soldier and a General.

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove and now Olmert have never served in a war. These men never learned the lessons Eisenhower did. That is why they will fail in their attempt to wipe out the "bad guys" in the Middle East.

But I am no one..just a woman that reads quite a bit of history and a woman that respects the right of indigneous people to live their life as they see fit, regardless of someones belief system or their politics.

Quotes from Eisenhower:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
-- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother Edgar, November 8, 1954

I voiced to him (Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945

Peace and Justice are two sides of the same coin.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: war, Politics, Israel, war on terror, warmongering fuckwits
posted by dusty1215 on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 282 times
13 comments from 7 users

1

posted by anonymous on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:04 PM
The so-called bad guys don't fight a traditional war because they cannot win a traditional war, that takes huge sums of money, and guerilla war is war on a shoe string. The object of guerilla war is attrition to win by outlasting the other party.

In Mexico in the early twentieth century there was a stong central government  and nosingle opposition group  to effect any real change in the dictatorship that existed. Splinter groups, Viaistas, Zapatistas, and a bunch of other groups started anf fought a guerllia war until they won and formed a new government. Incidentally most of these groups were seen in the US at the time as bandits and terrorist groups and we even sent Pershing after them.

That is what the stratagey in the Middle-East is and it always works, it worked in India and Pakistan and other places.  Yeah non-traditional war gives the little guy a big stick, and a lot of little guys are wielding big stick nowadays.

Whatever you think of Clinton, you have to admit he understands guerilla war, he bombed the hell out of Bosnia than turned it over to NATO except for a token force to protect our interests instead of getting caught in a sectarian ground war like the tall Texan  macho man find himself in today..
posted by dusty1215 on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:13 PM
Thanks for the history lesson anon, I do appreciate it. I know terrorist tactics are not new, and yes they are highly successful throughout history.

I voted for Clinton, what can I say other than I did support him..and his biggest fault was sex in the oval office..compared to our current administration that is pretty tame. They spent millions of bucks trying to bring him down: white water, travel gate, etc..yet we can not nail the Teflon boys for anything so far..
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:18 PM

And to think Eisenhower was a Republican.

 

Hoooooo-weeeeee, how things change.

 

posted by ProgressivePete2 on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:19 PM
what is traditional war anyway? Lining up in columns and shooting muskets at each other? Heck our forefathers that fought in the spanish american war used guerilla tactics that they learned from the native americans. That's how we beat the british. They were sitting ducks.
posted by dusty1215 on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Traditional in the sense like WWI and WWII I guess pete. The guerillas aka terrorists don't play by the rules and this drives our military and Israel's military nuts.

I guess my main point to this post is that a republican pres, who was also a military leader was smart enough to realize that the "military industrial complex" was something to keep a tight rein on. He also understood that negotiation was a better way to end conflict than guns and bombs.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:30 PM
It always has to end with negotiation. Even if one side surrenders. Guns and bombs only kill more people and create long term resentment if it is more of a one sided affair. That's why people talk about the situation in the middle east only creating and training more terrorists rather than doing anything to solve a problem.
posted by dusty1215 on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Hence my point that you can not kill an ideal or a belief with bombs and bullets..you merely further their cause..either Bush and his cabal are dipwads or they do not care..which do you suppose it is?
posted by randomfactor on Aug 16, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Why is everything either/or for you, Dusty?
posted by dusty1215 on Aug 16, 2006 at 05:07 PM
What other choice is there then random? What am I missing? The military surely is aware of the idiocy of fighting terrorists with a traditional military style, yet they continue. The same thing with Israel..they had to realize they would drive normal citizens over to Hezbollahs cause by bombing neighborhoods and killing more civilians than terrorists. Did they too expect Lebanese people to welcome them with open arms, just as Cheney said would happen when we invaded Iraq?
posted by randomfactor on Aug 16, 2006 at 05:21 PM
You have left out the possibility that they're dipwads *AND* they do not care.  Most likely case.
posted by dusty1215 on Aug 16, 2006 at 05:27 PM
Jeez..you had me all worried..thanks :p
posted by mattloch on Aug 18, 2006 at 09:37 AM
If Eisenhower was alive today, he'd be labeled a raving paranoid liberal by every Republican in office. Goes to show how far we've come in 50 years...
posted by allRED on Aug 21, 2006 at 04:54 AM
Mattloch: If JFK was alive today, He would be called a radical Republician. As your Quote( how far we have come)
1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement