Hundie Jo [Dot] Com

Darfur and Troop Safety

Honzo November 27th, 2005

Just Some Poor Schmuck: Facing Up To Being Inconsequential

But
didn’t the Post get the word? I’m sure it has been in all the papers.
The role of the United States military is not war fighting, it is not
peacekeeping, the role of the U.S. military is to keep the troops safe.
We’ll even accept defeat if it means keeping our troops out of harms
way.

It is a pretty good slap in the face if you read the whole thing.
Before the 2000 elections one of main things was against nation
building and being the world’s police. I just don’t know anymore.

Update: For those of you comming from Dave’s blog, I think he misses my point. Consider the following from the above linked post:

Of course there might be some lives saved. But if it
were at the expense of American lives it would not be worth it. Far
better to have the troops remain in the U.S. where they’re safe. We can
alway put out press releases deploring the Darfur situation. It’s
worked so far and it’s much safer that way. That’s what we did in
Cambodia and Rwanda and look how well that has worked.

If people in the Third World are looking for reliable allies, they
might talk to China or Iran. They may be murderous, but they still have
a backbone.

As for the U.S.?

We’ll still be around making brave speeches about American ideals of freedom. Just don’t expect us to try to live up to them.

2 Responses to “Darfur and Troop Safety”

  1. dave [Visitor]on 28 Nov 2005 at 12:27 pm

    That is not a slap in the face at all.


    Iraq and Sudan are two completely different issues, and you know it.

  2. Honzo [Member]on 28 Nov 2005 at 1:10 pm

    I agree with your last statement, but he uses them seperately for the same point.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply