Friday, 27 July 2007

"There is no Flag Large Enough to Cover the Shame of Killing Innocent People"

Leaving or not?

Maybe not.

Democrats cover their ass.

My thoughts are with the men and women serving in Iraq and the civilians whose lives are still being sacrificed.

Thanks to UWL for the image.


  1. Interesting but why don't you show the Union Jack being desecrated? How many innocents did the Brits kill the LAST TIME they went through Iraq?

  2. You know it's a bad situation when the question is not "What is the honorable thing to do, where we can help the most people?" and instead "How can we minimize the damage and the deaths we're causing?" And on top of this, 8,000 female veterans who came "home" are homeless.

  3. The Bush administration fails to understand the meaning of the word "surge."

    A surge implies that some sort of recession would follow, like the tide--meaning a partial or nearly total withdrawal of troops.

    They wouldn't withdraw all of them but would leave a number to protect the half-billion embassy in Baghdad (the most expensive in the world) and some military garrisons.

    Of course, the U.S. would continue to patrol the skies as we did before the policy of "containment" was canned.

    Then, they can always surge forward later, if it's warranted in the future. By that time, they'll have the IED-resistant personnel carriers and even the flying robots.

    They fail to understand that it would be wiser to pull out most of the troops, see how the central government fares, and keep the option open to send more troops in the future.

    So why NOT try a pullout? Why NOT pull out, say, 100,000 troops this year?

    The military scientists know for a fact that the average insurgency takes 12 years to put down, in historical terms. Why not rejigger the mix to get most of our guys out of there and compel the majority ethnic group there to take more responsibility?

    I just wonder what the real calculus is for how many innocents would die in renewed fighting once troops pull out a bit.

    I don't know. I think they should just leave 20,000 or so in there to protect the garrisons and embassy and that's it.

    What most republicans and democrats here fail to realize is that this isn't necessarily a yes-no situation and requires a highly nuanced solution.

    That said, I haven't read much about the Baker Report. Maybe they should just follow that.

  4. Thanks for posting this. I think it's really important the people know that the troops aren't all behind this war, either.

  5. Instead of "surge" they should have called this Bush's "climax" or "ejaculation". Then the troops could have a cigarette and get the hell out of there.

  6. M@
    Why not show the flag being desecrated? To desecrate your flag is a last resort for a soldier, something you do out of desperation, only when you have exhausted all other means of communication. it says, "I am ashamed of my country, the country I would so selflessly give my life for, the country I swore to protect and defend. My entire purpose for being has been dishonored. And you, the very people I chose to give my life for, have done this to me." I think the statement is clear.

  7. Matt: you never sturck me as a phoney nationalist before? I used the image cuz UWL had it up at hers and it struck home with me. Desecration of flags indeed, what piffle.


Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.