http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TLsHQo19m0 suggests that Sir Mike Jackson is a technophobe. Maybe throwing that thing he did not know how to turn off is analogous to what he did with the lives that were needlessly sacrificed under his leadership.
http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2006/12/general-mike-jackson-is-fucking-lying.html suggests that Sir Mike has ethics that do not come up to the standard of a professional builder. They are obliged to tell the customer that the job is impossible for that price and in that time specified, if that is indeed the case.
" .. the ultimate choking nastiness is that General Jackson , knew the hoplessness of the Afghan task, the lack of equipment, training, air support, the poor pay , the imprecise objectives, the havering of his NATO allies, the formidable foe, the devious political control , the duplicitous drug barons and war lords, the terrain, the sapping heat, searing dust, the cold, difficult supply lines .. and still he sent them... to please the politicians.
It is the job of Generals to tell politicians what is possible and what is not. He didn't and the dead troopers, pilots, airmen, drivers, blindly followed .. and leave behind, parents. wives, sweethearts, children and communities bereaved and distraught and the remaining troops in a hopeless, hapless desert mired by ignorant politicians in Death Alley.
Many more will die because of this stupid, ignorant , arrogant, vain , pompous martinet who says, "" The Army looks after it's own".
Tell that to the widows and the orphans General "Mike" Jackson."
Sir Mike did not really weigh in against the war until after he got his pension. I wonder why.
Another case of lions being led by dishonourable donkeys?
Forget about the legality of the war. Winning it trumps any claims of legality. But we are not winning, are we? We are losing. We ask to negotiate with the Taliban and they say to us sweetly:
"No need to negotiate. If you want to stop getting killed, just fuck off out of our country and leave us alone."
If it is war that cannot be won, then it was a war that should not have been started. Even I, a woman without military training know that. How come Sir Mike didn't? Perhaps he wanted to play soldiers with men's lives, mess up, claim his pension and then say he was against it but was forced to act against his better "judgment"?
There is nothing like an old fool, is there?
And there is no shit shittier than one who intones pompously and pointlessly.
Sue me, Sir Mike, sue me. I dare you. Do you not deserve the hatred, ridicule and contempt of right-thinking members of society? And is the Truth not justification for any claim in defamation you could bring against me?
How well do you think you will fare with the jury?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson
No comments:
Post a Comment