2007-11-27
Australia Chokes
Oh well, the inevitable happened. Australians have betrayed not just the Iraqi people, not just our American allies, but betrayed our own soul, hard-fought for by our ancestors.
On the plus side, apparently (I haven't watched or followed Australian news for years, unless the BBC reported on it) Rudd had less pork barrelling than Howard, meaning we will hopefully begin a chain of elections where parties eliminate port-barrelling altogether.
However, that's going to be blown away if he actually signs Kyoto with the intent of actually following it, meaning we'll have a 15% hit to our economy, for no benefit to anyone at all. I'd rather see that 15% spent on a military capable of single-handedly toppling the Iranian dictatorship.
I saw a comment a couple of threads ago about my military genius. Well, here is the first public record of my military genius. Search for "main differences from Russia". This was Nov 1, 2001, when I first started asking what the holdup was in liberating Afghanistan. Seemed like a walk in the park to me. Two stalemated sides, one suddenly getting complete air supremacy added to them. How the hell was the other side expected to counter that?
Of course, the military "experts" were saying things like "But also some senior congressmen and senators are already whining that things are going fast enough. Idiots. They expect a quick and bloodless two week war. (sigh)".
And yeah, that's exactly what I was expecting too. I was wondering how it had managed to drag on for 3-4 weeks at that point. The exchange went something like this:
PE: Adding complete air supremacy to one side of a civil war will lead to the Northern Alliance being able to walk it in.
Supposed Military Expert: "the Taliban won't be overthrown overnight in some quick commando raids and airstrikes like the media likes to make the war out as. That is pure BS. If that does happen I will be first to drop to my knees and bow to you saying that you were right on the money and I was dead wrong. I hope you are right. I really do. If this war is won in the fashion then it'll be a massive military coup in military philosophy and strategy and a first in military history. My own opinion is that it will eventually involve very large amounts of ground troops and it will be a fierce and bloody war where the Taliban will fight fiercely for every inch of soil as they have successfully against every other invader in their history (and against each other)."
And this was around about Nov 4th. By Nov 10th, Mazar-e-Sharif had fallen, and on Nov 14th, Kabul fell.
So do you think the supposed military expert was "first to drop to [his] knees and bow to [me] saying that [I was] right on the money and [he] was dead wrong"? Nah, he just found some bullshit excuse to weasel his way out of his predicament, after having been shown up by a civilian. Happens with everyone I debate. I have them tied down with pure logic, and they refuse to simply admit that their entire horrible worldview is a piece of shit and that they will immediately change. Oh well, at least I do my bit.
It's amazing how even now some people think the Taliban are some super threat about to take over the country. Able to do now with a handful of troops what they were unable to do when they ruled 90% of the country. Despite the fact that the total number of friendly troops that they have killed amounts to less than a WWII river crossing, and in fact, even less than civilians killed on 9/11.
Really, I don't know how some people manage to figure out which orifice they need to put food in to stay alive. How do they manage to function at all with a "brain" like that?
Anyway, I'm happy with what I was promised - "a massive military coup in military philosophy and strategy and a first in military history". I'll see if I can find somewhere to put that on my resume. And the US military knows where to come if they want to know how to take down Iran. While they have, to date, been doing exactly what I would have done myself anyway, if that happened to be pure coincidence, then they'd better check with me to make sure they know what they're doing.
|
On the plus side, apparently (I haven't watched or followed Australian news for years, unless the BBC reported on it) Rudd had less pork barrelling than Howard, meaning we will hopefully begin a chain of elections where parties eliminate port-barrelling altogether.
However, that's going to be blown away if he actually signs Kyoto with the intent of actually following it, meaning we'll have a 15% hit to our economy, for no benefit to anyone at all. I'd rather see that 15% spent on a military capable of single-handedly toppling the Iranian dictatorship.
I saw a comment a couple of threads ago about my military genius. Well, here is the first public record of my military genius. Search for "main differences from Russia". This was Nov 1, 2001, when I first started asking what the holdup was in liberating Afghanistan. Seemed like a walk in the park to me. Two stalemated sides, one suddenly getting complete air supremacy added to them. How the hell was the other side expected to counter that?
Of course, the military "experts" were saying things like "But also some senior congressmen and senators are already whining that things are going fast enough. Idiots. They expect a quick and bloodless two week war. (sigh)".
And yeah, that's exactly what I was expecting too. I was wondering how it had managed to drag on for 3-4 weeks at that point. The exchange went something like this:
PE: Adding complete air supremacy to one side of a civil war will lead to the Northern Alliance being able to walk it in.
Supposed Military Expert: "the Taliban won't be overthrown overnight in some quick commando raids and airstrikes like the media likes to make the war out as. That is pure BS. If that does happen I will be first to drop to my knees and bow to you saying that you were right on the money and I was dead wrong. I hope you are right. I really do. If this war is won in the fashion then it'll be a massive military coup in military philosophy and strategy and a first in military history. My own opinion is that it will eventually involve very large amounts of ground troops and it will be a fierce and bloody war where the Taliban will fight fiercely for every inch of soil as they have successfully against every other invader in their history (and against each other)."
And this was around about Nov 4th. By Nov 10th, Mazar-e-Sharif had fallen, and on Nov 14th, Kabul fell.
So do you think the supposed military expert was "first to drop to [his] knees and bow to [me] saying that [I was] right on the money and [he] was dead wrong"? Nah, he just found some bullshit excuse to weasel his way out of his predicament, after having been shown up by a civilian. Happens with everyone I debate. I have them tied down with pure logic, and they refuse to simply admit that their entire horrible worldview is a piece of shit and that they will immediately change. Oh well, at least I do my bit.
It's amazing how even now some people think the Taliban are some super threat about to take over the country. Able to do now with a handful of troops what they were unable to do when they ruled 90% of the country. Despite the fact that the total number of friendly troops that they have killed amounts to less than a WWII river crossing, and in fact, even less than civilians killed on 9/11.
Really, I don't know how some people manage to figure out which orifice they need to put food in to stay alive. How do they manage to function at all with a "brain" like that?
Anyway, I'm happy with what I was promised - "a massive military coup in military philosophy and strategy and a first in military history". I'll see if I can find somewhere to put that on my resume. And the US military knows where to come if they want to know how to take down Iran. While they have, to date, been doing exactly what I would have done myself anyway, if that happened to be pure coincidence, then they'd better check with me to make sure they know what they're doing.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 15:10 
