With your policy you better start brushing up on the muzzy language. GR "Anarchore" <e@t.me> wrote in message news:mn.6b997d7c143d8d54.75909@t.me... > Puditman nails it! > > http://punditman.blogspot.com/2007/09/camouflage-ribbons-and-social-control.html > > 9/21/2007 > Camouflage, Ribbons and Social Control > > punditman says... > > What's up with all the camouflage folks? Everywhere I go, it is camouflage > pants, skirts, caps, tops, backpacks, jackets, headbands, snow suits and > dog leashes. Grandmas, school children, middle aged pot bellies--name a > demographic--and you will see them sporting their earthy tones. > > You know your country is at war when the most popular fashion statement > around is combat apparel. Does this mean that everyone who wears > camouflage supports Canada's mission in Afghanistan? I doubt it. The > latest polls certainly suggest otherwise. So as a fashion statement (or is > that "fascist" statement?), you are, ah, trying to blend in with the > plastic foliage in the shopping mall? > > I don't get it. > > After all, the idea of camouflage is to make one's self the same as the > surrounding environment. Then again, at this rate, the growing sea of > green, brown, tan, grey and black splotches may soon turn out to be > weirdly analogous to the garb once worn by crowds at Grateful Dead > concerts: everyone wore tie-dye and everyone blended in. But that didn't > make everyone a hippie-especially so-called "Deadhead" Ann Coulter. > > Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was > either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of > mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in > a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or > animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just > because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod. > > Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture. > > This past summer I considered buying a new Wilson tennis racquet to > replace my old "Hyper Hammer 5.2" frame. But when I went shopping I was > informed that the latest incarnation of my old racquet is now called the > "Surge." Is it just coincidence that this corporate branding coincided > with the name of Bush's plan to increase the number of American troops > deployed to the Iraq War? I think not. I found a new version of my old > racquet online. Somehow it sounds more benign. > > Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of "Support > Our Troops" ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can't go anywhere > without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, > some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is > asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What > does "Support Our Troops" really mean? > > Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the > decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. > This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us > who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase "Support Our > Troops" is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent's snarl. This is known in > grammatical circles as the "imperative mood." Therefore the directive to > "Support Our Troops" comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy > meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess. > > Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing > else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least > eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to > police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. > Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an > inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not "Support Our Cancer > Patients" or "Support Our Single Moms"? Are they less worthy? > > Pretending the yellow ribbon is neutral means pretending that everyone > supports the troops. But if you stop to think about it, this is neither > true nor possible. One can not "support the troops" but not their mission > because that is a logical inconsistency. If you want to see the combat > mission ended and Canada's soldiers brought home as soon as possible, then > you really do not support them because a good part of their current > mission is to kill or be killed. > > For the record, I have no grand scheme, nor any simple answers to end the > latest Afghan quagmire. In fact, nobody does, including those who > obediently support military missions that have no exit strategy. > > One can debate the need for security first as a means to development and > stability, versus the need for development as a means to security, but > what should be obvious is that occupation and counter-insurgency have > terrible track records historically. As noted in the Toronto Star > recently, according to Thomas Johnson, professor of national security at > the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, "Since World War > II, is there one successful counter-insurgency? The answer is none. This > war will never be won militarily." > > For this reason, Canadian Pulitzer Prize-winning photo journalist Paul > Watson wants to ask a few questions of his old high school friend, Prime > Minister Stephen Harper: > > "I would beg him, as a former friend and someone who has access to > intelligence that I don't, to explain to me why we're putting soldiers' > lives on the line and asking them to kill civilians to defend themselves > when all the military people I've spoken to admit that there is no > military solution in Afghanistan," said Watson. > > > > Actually, efforts to negotiate by bringing in all sides- various Pashtun > tribal leaders, Taliban and other insurgent groups, and the government in > Kabul, as well as in Islamabad-are ongoing. In fact, according to The > Nation, a major English-language newspaper in Pakistan, secret talks began > there in August between U.S. officials and the Taliban. > > Oddly enough, the two sides have at least one thing in common: both are > split along fractious lines. The renewed Taliban is divided between > moderates and extremists, while the Bush administration appears to be > divided on whether or not to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. > > One may well ask: where should Canada's foreign policy priorities be right > now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what > looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working > through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration > between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear? > > It's time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps. > >