2006-12-06
Iraqi Equation
Here is what the military situation in Iraq looks like:
"Most Sunni Arab terrorists favor a secular dictatorship. This, however, is out of touch with reality. Kurds and Shia Arabs outnumber Sunni Arabs by nearly nine to one, have more guns, have American troops to back them up, and want revenge."
Just let this thing run its course. The fight is so one-sided it is not funny. Or if you can't bear to see American troops being killed any more, then at least provide air support. This is what caused South Vietnam to be lost to NVA ***tanks*** - lack of air support. I believe the tipping point was reached long ago. There are simply too many Iraqi government troops for them to lose at this stage of the game. But there's no need to tempt fate. Just let the one-sided battle continue until no-one has any doubt at all that the Sunni aren't going to be coming back with a new dictatorship. Iraqi troops are coming online at a rate of 2000 per week. It's in safe hands. The only question is how long can Sunni Arab terrorists continue to live in a fantasy world?
However, this article is quite disturbing. The new Secretary of Defense is a fruitloop. Look at this:
"the US is not winning the war in Iraq."
By what measure you moron? Territory controlled? Troops killed? Population behind the government (which they elected)? Number of new recruits to the security forces? Total number of security forces? What measure?
"He agreed with the panel that the situation was unacceptable and said he would introduce a change of tactics, if confirmed."
What change of tactics, moron? Anything you change is going to destroy the ability of the free world to protect itself. You have to keep to the current strategy of just enabling local patriots to stand up and make a difference. There's no chance of getting the rest of the world liberated (and at the same time making the world secure for the free world), unless you can come up with tactics that don't involve much more than providing air support (even if it makes the war take longer).
"Said the US should attack Iran only as a last resort and he would not support military action against Syria"
You fucking moron! 70 million Iranian slaves and you want to play patty-cake with their dictator? Ditto for Syria. Where do you people come from? What is it that makes you not care about slavery?
"Called for a broad bipartisan agreement on how to fight war on terror"
Yeah, right. And why not get Castro's approval for any action you take either. God forbid people who support dictatorships should get offended at dictatorships being toppled.
"The group's recommendations are widely expected to include a gradual phased withdrawal of US troops over the next 18 months."
Yeah, run away. The troops themselves are shitting in their pants and asking to be withdrawn from the fight, right? You actually asked them, right? You asked them if they want to be seen as a bunch of gutless pansies, right? It'll be great for morale, right? Secretary of Defense? Should be called Secretary of Unconditional Surrender. Where do you people come from?
"It is also thought to favour the idea of holding a regional conference on Iraq that would involve Syria and Iran"
Yeah, right. Why not involve Pol Pot while you're at it. I'm sure if we all just sit together and sing kumbiyah, everything will be sweet. That's what we need more of. Make love, not war.
Just go away. Please go away. Bush, what are you playing at? Surely you know better than to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? I hope this is all just an act of deception. I sure hope you're playing a tight game of cards, because it's starting to diverge from what I would do myself. Is this a tactic to ensure you get a Republican in 2008 so that you can actually start a blitzkrieg? It is very difficult when you are constrained by what 1% swing voters choose to do. I agree that the most logical thing to do at this point in history is to ensure the swing voters give you another lease of life. And I also agree that I do not know how to influence those swing voters myself. So I hope you are working on this problem, and just toying with the rest of the world. So long as it works out in the end, I don't mind. But if the Iranians stay slaves for a moment longer than necessary, I'm going to dob you in to your mother. Or blow up the UN, whatever.
|
"Most Sunni Arab terrorists favor a secular dictatorship. This, however, is out of touch with reality. Kurds and Shia Arabs outnumber Sunni Arabs by nearly nine to one, have more guns, have American troops to back them up, and want revenge."
Just let this thing run its course. The fight is so one-sided it is not funny. Or if you can't bear to see American troops being killed any more, then at least provide air support. This is what caused South Vietnam to be lost to NVA ***tanks*** - lack of air support. I believe the tipping point was reached long ago. There are simply too many Iraqi government troops for them to lose at this stage of the game. But there's no need to tempt fate. Just let the one-sided battle continue until no-one has any doubt at all that the Sunni aren't going to be coming back with a new dictatorship. Iraqi troops are coming online at a rate of 2000 per week. It's in safe hands. The only question is how long can Sunni Arab terrorists continue to live in a fantasy world?
However, this article is quite disturbing. The new Secretary of Defense is a fruitloop. Look at this:
"the US is not winning the war in Iraq."
By what measure you moron? Territory controlled? Troops killed? Population behind the government (which they elected)? Number of new recruits to the security forces? Total number of security forces? What measure?
"He agreed with the panel that the situation was unacceptable and said he would introduce a change of tactics, if confirmed."
What change of tactics, moron? Anything you change is going to destroy the ability of the free world to protect itself. You have to keep to the current strategy of just enabling local patriots to stand up and make a difference. There's no chance of getting the rest of the world liberated (and at the same time making the world secure for the free world), unless you can come up with tactics that don't involve much more than providing air support (even if it makes the war take longer).
"Said the US should attack Iran only as a last resort and he would not support military action against Syria"
You fucking moron! 70 million Iranian slaves and you want to play patty-cake with their dictator? Ditto for Syria. Where do you people come from? What is it that makes you not care about slavery?
"Called for a broad bipartisan agreement on how to fight war on terror"
Yeah, right. And why not get Castro's approval for any action you take either. God forbid people who support dictatorships should get offended at dictatorships being toppled.
"The group's recommendations are widely expected to include a gradual phased withdrawal of US troops over the next 18 months."
Yeah, run away. The troops themselves are shitting in their pants and asking to be withdrawn from the fight, right? You actually asked them, right? You asked them if they want to be seen as a bunch of gutless pansies, right? It'll be great for morale, right? Secretary of Defense? Should be called Secretary of Unconditional Surrender. Where do you people come from?
"It is also thought to favour the idea of holding a regional conference on Iraq that would involve Syria and Iran"
Yeah, right. Why not involve Pol Pot while you're at it. I'm sure if we all just sit together and sing kumbiyah, everything will be sweet. That's what we need more of. Make love, not war.
Just go away. Please go away. Bush, what are you playing at? Surely you know better than to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? I hope this is all just an act of deception. I sure hope you're playing a tight game of cards, because it's starting to diverge from what I would do myself. Is this a tactic to ensure you get a Republican in 2008 so that you can actually start a blitzkrieg? It is very difficult when you are constrained by what 1% swing voters choose to do. I agree that the most logical thing to do at this point in history is to ensure the swing voters give you another lease of life. And I also agree that I do not know how to influence those swing voters myself. So I hope you are working on this problem, and just toying with the rest of the world. So long as it works out in the end, I don't mind. But if the Iranians stay slaves for a moment longer than necessary, I'm going to dob you in to your mother. Or blow up the UN, whatever.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 12:13 
