Can they do it? Not if they apply the JJ doctrine, methinks.
"Fallujah has an iconic value to the Marine Corps. Fallujah falling [to insurgents] would be like Iwo Jima falling to the Japanese again after World War II - it would be intolerable."
[AI, I have added some random picture taken on Iwo Jima a while back. Seems AA is unaware of the meaning of the word iconic. Perhaps an example will help. -JJ]
Posts
11 comments:
"Many would ask: What other war would we allow the enemy to broadcast calls for our defeat, for the sake of cultural sensitivity?" says O'Neill.
Ask JJ.
Quite typically this is a misrepresentation of what even the Jimmah Carters of the World would want.
If we pulled out of Fallujah that's not the same as the terrorists retaking it.
Should be obvious.
If "Not the same" means differ by between 0.001% and 0.01%, OK, I agree.
OK, OK, let's not fight over this. But take a look at this piece from the NYT -- quite good, for a change. Audio/photo stuff is even better.
JJ is being disingenuous here to what purpose? Yes, we handed back Iwo Jima to Japan. When and why? When they had been thoroughly defeated, the old regime was vanquished, and they had spent years under our rule building a new political structure. And why we gave it, long after, was exactly because we were now at peace and the new political structures had successfully taken hold.
What exactly has this to do with our retreating on the Iraqui front, and on all fronts, with the war very much "live"?
Yes, we have an administration who shows that there is something worse than lacking the courage of your convictions. And that is this thing we are face now when there are no convictions to either have or have not the courage for. And so the Pepean path would simply stop everything at "half-measure", and cut and run, and leave all those who were fool enough to believe us when we said we had convictions, as walking dead. OK, if so then this administration embraces both defeat and dishonor. In which case what is your argument about Fallujah? The Marines point out, being the ones who put their lives on the line for our President's "convictions", that cutting and running and abandoning the land and the people to the enemy is, by any account of an honest man, defeat. And, since it is done out of political expediency and the cowardice of our leadership, it is also dishonorable. And that, no matter how many Baker's dozens of semantic games one throws at it, is the brute reality.
That should be obvious.
Thanks, AA, for setting things straight with JJ. I was getting battle-weary, and did not have the stomach to re-fight Iwo-Jima with him.
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. Is the turkey still cooking?
"Fallujah has an iconic value to the Marine Corps. Fallujah falling [to insurgents] would be like Iwo Jima falling to the Japanese again after World War II - it would be intolerable."
That is what AI put on the main page. There's no fucking Fallujah 'falling to insurgents' as far as any sober Marine Corps iconology is concerned.
If anything, the USMC should be ashamed of all the rapes and murders they are getting caught committing. That is some "iconic value" that could affect them, not some decision made in Washington to discard their achievements (if for some hallucinogenic reason Fallujah could be compared with Iwojima).
Jesus, wake up and quit trying to outdo each other's foolishness.
Rapes and murders? JJ, do you care to compare the percentage of rapes and murders carried out by the tens of thousands of young males in the marines compared to the equivalent in the US population??? And this under the battle conditions of being ever present targets, with an absolutely take no prisoners enemy, with one hand perpetually tied behind your hand by dictates of the proponents of "nuance and sophistication" in how to fight a war? It is a bloody miracle the rate of moral collapse has been so low as it has. And, unlike our administration, the Marines will hold those who broke utterly responsible for their actions.
Now, take your christ and your Jesus and ask what sort of perverse foolishness it was, and is, that would send men to fight and die in a war where the leadership will not allow the men to fight to win, or even to fight, but insists nevertheless that there is cause they be there? [although the cause is never explained, or never explained in any rhetoric that matches the reality on the ground.] They can die, but for no good reason, eh? No doubt, JJ, there are liars and the dishonorable playing an important role in this game, but relatively very few are among the Marines.
I have no idea how, why, Fallujah would be "Iconic", rather I do not know what precisely is meant by that as far as Marines are concerned. But I do know that, as symbol of the moral and intellectual corruption of much of the political leadership in this war, it may well be remembered as Canonical.
Have you made it your mission to show us that a Pepe in Hand is worth more than two J's in the Bush?
Unfortunately, there is no Thanksgiving in Canuckia today. The only Turkey I see is the one staring back in the mirror, and he ain't brownin' so well
JJ, why attack the Marines, in the classic Kerry mode? They're doing the best they can, under terribly difficult circumstances, to hold the fort against utter bloody nihilism. I'll stand by them, come what may.
We're talking about icons and comparing our Marines of today with our Marines of WWII. There's no comparison between Fallujah and Iwo Jima and there's no comparison between sets of Marines.
That's all I'm saying.
Post a Comment