2007-07-07
Brave Iraqis
There is a great article here. And the comments are good too. First the article:
"But then a strange thing happened, one that never got the attention it deserved. Despite all the terror attacks, people kept joining the police and army."
And this is indeed the most obvious thing. With brave Iraqis standing up to be counted, victory was assured. These VOLUNTEERS are the most beautiful people on the planet. Whenever I see pictures of these beautiful soldiers, my heart is touched. You can see a picture of one of them here. These are the people who don't judge us by our skin colour or religion. Instead they put their life on the line to protect us. Obviously our own soldiers do so as well, but it is nowhere near as touching to be defended by your own race/religion/nationality as it is to be protected by a complete stranger. It is THESE men, not Hizbullah and Hamas, that are indeed, "God's Army".
Now let's move on to the comments:
"Iraq was the first member of the so called axis of evil attacked because they were the most vulnerable, and a ready made causus belli existed - Iraq's non-compliance with the 1991 cease-fire accords."
Exactly. For obvious reasons, the government can't blurt this out, but the truth is sitting there staring at your face, and blindingly obvious to some, at least.
Unfortunately, he goes off the rails from there:
"Iran is a larger and stronger country than Iraq was even in 1991."
So? Iraq was a pushover. We've heard all this crap so many times. I'm sure when we get to Zimbabwe we'll be hearing "Zimbabwe is not Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon or Sudan". Regardless, ableiter confirmed that my prediction of 3.5 weeks and 100 allied casualties was probably going to be correct.
"It has significant internal divisions, but the bast way to resolve them would be to attack Iran."
The hell it is. We've heard this crap before too. Afghanistan was split 85/15 in our favour. Iraq was split 50/50. Where the hell do you get the idea that it is going to be 100/0 against us in Iran? However, this is exactly why we need to keep these liberations going. To get the scientific data about human behaviour on this crucial topic. So that we can analyze the results.
"In short, Iraq was first because it was do-able."
Correct.
"The results of the preemptive war are still undetermined."
The important scientific data has already been obtained. There is still long-term data to be collected, specifically what effect freedom of speech, democracy, the internet, a modern education and affluence have on at least one group of Arab Muslims. The scope of the required genocide is dependent on this data, unless we're impatient.
"We are rid of the dangerous saddamite regime, but we are stuck in a volatile political situation that could end up throwing the game for us."
Certainly if the Democrats start barracking for the terrorists, like they did the commies, we would have a disaster.
"It is also a situation that is consuming a huge portion of the administration’s foreign policy bandwidth."
That's unfortunately true. Iraq is taking a hell of a lot longer than hoped for, and pushing back the whole program of liberation. However, it is a once-off cost, and there is just enough time to do the bulk of the work if Bush has the balls to do the right thing.
Then we have this funny comment from someone else:
"Iran isn't even the right sect of our enemies to even accuse them of helping AQ.
I mean Iraq with a Sunni leadership "never helped AQ" according to the left, and now you want to tell them the WOT against AQ has something to do with Iran?"
Yes, the left must be getting exasperated by the right. We necessarily need to throw out a long list of excuses about why we need to invade "just one more country", and for a pacifist that doesn't want to invade any countries at all, they must be tearing their hair out. :-) Yeah, yeah. Just one more. :-) For now. :-) That's why I asked Howard to issue a declaration of war on Iran only and say "no comment" about all the other dictators in the world.
Anyway, I look forward to the day when those beautiful, brave, Iraqi soldiers are taking part in NATO missions!
|
"But then a strange thing happened, one that never got the attention it deserved. Despite all the terror attacks, people kept joining the police and army."
And this is indeed the most obvious thing. With brave Iraqis standing up to be counted, victory was assured. These VOLUNTEERS are the most beautiful people on the planet. Whenever I see pictures of these beautiful soldiers, my heart is touched. You can see a picture of one of them here. These are the people who don't judge us by our skin colour or religion. Instead they put their life on the line to protect us. Obviously our own soldiers do so as well, but it is nowhere near as touching to be defended by your own race/religion/nationality as it is to be protected by a complete stranger. It is THESE men, not Hizbullah and Hamas, that are indeed, "God's Army".
Now let's move on to the comments:
"Iraq was the first member of the so called axis of evil attacked because they were the most vulnerable, and a ready made causus belli existed - Iraq's non-compliance with the 1991 cease-fire accords."
Exactly. For obvious reasons, the government can't blurt this out, but the truth is sitting there staring at your face, and blindingly obvious to some, at least.
Unfortunately, he goes off the rails from there:
"Iran is a larger and stronger country than Iraq was even in 1991."
So? Iraq was a pushover. We've heard all this crap so many times. I'm sure when we get to Zimbabwe we'll be hearing "Zimbabwe is not Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon or Sudan". Regardless, ableiter confirmed that my prediction of 3.5 weeks and 100 allied casualties was probably going to be correct.
"It has significant internal divisions, but the bast way to resolve them would be to attack Iran."
The hell it is. We've heard this crap before too. Afghanistan was split 85/15 in our favour. Iraq was split 50/50. Where the hell do you get the idea that it is going to be 100/0 against us in Iran? However, this is exactly why we need to keep these liberations going. To get the scientific data about human behaviour on this crucial topic. So that we can analyze the results.
"In short, Iraq was first because it was do-able."
Correct.
"The results of the preemptive war are still undetermined."
The important scientific data has already been obtained. There is still long-term data to be collected, specifically what effect freedom of speech, democracy, the internet, a modern education and affluence have on at least one group of Arab Muslims. The scope of the required genocide is dependent on this data, unless we're impatient.
"We are rid of the dangerous saddamite regime, but we are stuck in a volatile political situation that could end up throwing the game for us."
Certainly if the Democrats start barracking for the terrorists, like they did the commies, we would have a disaster.
"It is also a situation that is consuming a huge portion of the administration’s foreign policy bandwidth."
That's unfortunately true. Iraq is taking a hell of a lot longer than hoped for, and pushing back the whole program of liberation. However, it is a once-off cost, and there is just enough time to do the bulk of the work if Bush has the balls to do the right thing.
Then we have this funny comment from someone else:
"Iran isn't even the right sect of our enemies to even accuse them of helping AQ.
I mean Iraq with a Sunni leadership "never helped AQ" according to the left, and now you want to tell them the WOT against AQ has something to do with Iran?"
Yes, the left must be getting exasperated by the right. We necessarily need to throw out a long list of excuses about why we need to invade "just one more country", and for a pacifist that doesn't want to invade any countries at all, they must be tearing their hair out. :-) Yeah, yeah. Just one more. :-) For now. :-) That's why I asked Howard to issue a declaration of war on Iran only and say "no comment" about all the other dictators in the world.
Anyway, I look forward to the day when those beautiful, brave, Iraqi soldiers are taking part in NATO missions!
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 13:58 
