What The Flock Are We Doing In Iraq?

[Kai]

What The Flock Are We Doing In Iraq?
Blaming Veterans for Executive Policy

As of 11/6/09, the Army psychiatrist, Nidal Malik Hason, has not only killed and wounded dozens of people at Fort Hood, Texas Army Base, he has cast another ominous shadow on what was already - since 9/11 - a very controversial issue; reintroducing fragile questions, including religious undertones - as they relate to (well intended and otherwise motivated) Muslims in America, and activating questions regarding America's motive(s) for armed presence in the Middle East.

Very unfortunately, this appears to be a pejorative problem, for which there is no easy solution. Vets and apolitical citizens are being blamed - and are suffering and dying for - questionable executive policy. The unreliably reported lessons of Vietnam, and the failed - eight year - Russian Expedition into Afghanistan enter this foreboding incumbency. Constitutionally fortified issues of Free Speech are being compromised - displaced with citizen fear of government (and qualified elements of the 'Homeland Security' and 'Patriot' acts: which nullify the former requirement for a judge's order to tap telephones, and void 'due cause' for satellite reconnaissance directed upon law abiding citizens. Rogue gvt. did obtain these constitutional transgressions by way of the occurrence of the World Trade Center attacks ).

Excersizing fundamental American Principles of Free Speech has evolved into grounds for suspicion of 'terrorism'. The cost and consequences of American Armed Forces in the Middle East is escalating on many fronts which are a challenge to American Constitutional mainstays and domestic tranquility.

Caveat: America cannot be conquered from the outside, but, she can - and may - be compromised from within.

I very sincerely hope I am wrong about this, but, I think we are far from seeing the resolve of this convuluted dilemma. I am an American born veteran, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from all her enemies, be they foreign or domestic, whomsoever. Incidentally, I wish to emphasize here, that I consider violent revolution to be counter revolutionary. I believe that the - overdue - revolution should, and will, occur, on a platform of liberated - and responsible - communication.

"Beware, the military-industrial complex, lest they lead you into war for profit". - Dwight David Eisenhower. Supreme Comdr. of Allied Forces; President of the United States.

- Kai

With regard to the issue of 'politics', that casts a very wide loop in the connotations of its meaning - politics frequently if not characteristically encompasses ethics. Moreover, this is an international issue certainly having much to do with 'religion', and the religiously motivated behavior of people and nations.

The ethical considerations include the fact that Bin Laden - until further notice - has vanished. Hussein has been executed for war crimes.

Terrorist suicide pilots, bombers and shooters increase with each day of American occupation (by any other name). All of these subjects are affiliated with religion ('Jihad') - which has much more to do with ethics than politics.

Then there is the ethical (and political) lesson of Vietnam, and certainly that of Afghanistan having routed the Russians, in the wake of a failed eight year effort to subdue them. It is my qualified opinion that ethics has a great deal to do with what can be called a 'political' issue. By definition, certainly not a 'local' political issue.


The emergence of the Patriot and Home Security Acts - since 9/11/01 - has raised strong ethical issues having to do with the national suppression of Constitutionally guaranteed elements of American rights and freedoms. Indeed, these considerations may be called 'politics', but there are strong issues of ethics in the foreground of all these very controversial issues, which show every indication of growing worse, instead of better.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99403