Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 241 To 246 Of 246 Comments
IRAQ: THE WITHDRAWAL CLOCK IS OFFICIALLY TICKING
"First, you have NO commonsense, second, your intellecutal capability is severely atrophied, due to decades of inculcation by Leftists, anti-American Academia in America; third, because of your short-sightedness and Leftist proclivities, you avoid like the plauge, service in your country’s military services; you have no practical experience in the world, the military, the government; uusally your only major experience in life is having taken a weekend spring break trip to Cancun, or Aruba, where you spent the majority of the time drunk, high, and/or trying to get on some sex-act video so it could be uploaded to some $14.95/per month pay-porn site."
Goodness me, you certainly can tell a lot about me from that little bit, can't you. Unfortunately you are wrong in almost every particular, apart from the military service part. Coming from a military family, I considered the Royal Navy as a career but decided that I wanted a more stable lifestyle in which to raise a family.
"Instead, you know all about “Kwanzaâ€, and the fact that we now have a “Fall Festival†and a “Winter Festivalâ€, because Halloween and Christmas have been outlawed, and your learning about Ramada and Hare Krishna, because they’re Anti-American, and thus GOOD!"
Sorry, I have no idea what "Kwanza" is, and celebrate Christmas and Halloween. I've never been to a fall festival in my life, nor do I even know what one is.
"Poking people like you, RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES, until you either GET IT, or I damage your pea-sized logic holder!"
OK. Sounds like fun.
"What the Union did, to the population of the South, during the Civil War, and what the Allies did to the Germans and the Japanese, on many SINGLE DAYS, outweighed ANYTHING that has happened in Afghanistan, and Iraq, to all concerned: Miliary and Civilian, COMBINED, over the past FIVE YEARS!"
Yeeees. That's knid of obvious, isn't it. But then you're not fighting a war to conquer, are you. You are fighting a war to liberate, aren't you?
"Now, your Leftist sensibilities are screaming out at this point: MURDERER, you have no regard for human life, you want people to die, you’re excusing the murder of innocents, and you don’t care about your fellow military etc., etc.!"
No, they aren't. Sorry to disappoint. My sensibilities are saying "What's your point?".
"My wants/desires didn’t keep Al Qaeda from murdering 3000 of my fellow citizens, while they were at their desks, catching up on their emails, or drinking their coffee, or thinking about when they had to leave work to go home to their kid’s soccer game!"
No, that was piss poor intelligence work, wasn't it.
I am still not really getting your point. What does this have to do with the war in Iraq?
"Hey Drongo, there are BAD people in the world, they don’t think like you and me; life is disposable to them; they could give a shit if you “like†them, and just want to get along, and that you’re culturally sensitive, and want to reach out to them!"
Yes, I know. Do you think that the war in Iraq has increased or decreased to number of people who hate us enough to harm us?
"Drongo, they don’t give a crap! So you can wallow in your self-hate, and self-guilt, and your reflexive Anti-Americanism; that’s fine, they’ll smile in your face, and slit your throat while you’re still wallowing in self-pity and hate for Bush!"
Well, the chance of any of them trying to slit my throat are remarkably low, since I live in the home counties. Not a whole lot of Islamicly driven murders around here. And I tend to wallow in the confort of my life, not in any form of hatred. I must say, though it grieves me to say it, that you seem to have some serious issues with some of your fellow citizens.
"So, we HAD better succeed in Iraq, it’s the “BIG IDEAâ€; we HAVE NO choice, otherwise, sooner or later, it’s World War, against the Islamic Caliphate, and you Quislings and worshipers of Neville Chamberlain, will be running to people like me, and crying going “why didn’t anyone warn us….â€, and hiding behind your skirts, as people like ME, die to protect your sorry asses!"
I still fail to see how the Islamic caliphate is going to invade the UK or the US. What are they going to do? Load up surplus military hardware on a tanker and invade Kent? How are they planning to deal with the obvious threat of nuclear destruction?
"So, to get back to your original point; I don’t CARE whether we can win the Iraqi hearts and minds, RIGHT now; we didn’t try to win the Japanese and German hearts and minds either; SIXTY YEARS AGO, we WON the DAMN WAR First, and their HEARTS and MINDS came after; if you have any doubt, go visit Germany and Japan NOW, and see what WE accomplished over there; NOT THEM; US, the United States enabled them to be the countries they are now, 60years later; and we earned it with the blood of our young men and women; because despite the pain, and suffering, and the deaths of innocents, WE made the WORLD a BETTER PLACE!"
Well, yes, but then you didn't have to deal with an insurgency as active as this one, did you, powered by religious fanaticism. A war was fought, lots of people died, the countries surrendered and then reconstruction and reintegration proceeded. This is pretty obviously not the war that is going on in Iraq. In Iraq there is no-one to surrender, there is no decisive battle to win, there is no strategic hinges to attack.
It strikes me that the example of WWII is the worst possible one to use as your view of this war. You know perfectly well that steel on target is not going to do the job in CI warfare. It never has and it never will. You're a marine for goodness sake, of all the US military branches you guys are the innovators, the ones who recognise the situation for what it is not what you want it to be because you are in the thick of it. Above you made that clear.
Your argument about deaths in WWII vs Iraq is like saying that since you used a large explosive charge to demolish a building, a stick of dynamite would be the best way to open your stuck front door.
Killing a million Iraqis is not going to produce an improved situation in Iraq. Killing 10 million or so might do it.
"Thus, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the pain, the suffering, the dead Americans and dead Iraqis and dead Afghanistanis; it IS NECESSARY; we ARE going to make the World, in the LONG RUN, ad better place, we are going to transform a Murderous Ideology; and we HAVE to do, for the sake of US, and THEM, in the long run!"
OK, you are going to make the world a better place. Since, obviously, the current strategy in Iraq is just producing a failed vacuum of a state which will, and does, provide a perfect recruiting and training ground for terrorists, this strategy needs to change. It is just as clear that Islam, as a political force in Iraq is vastly more influential and organised than it was 5 years ago. Presumably you regard this as a bad thing (I know that I do).
The strategy at the moment obviously isn't working. What should be being done differently that might lead to an improved state. Lets pick "Less Islamic nutcases" as the indicator of success.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 17.10.2006 @ 08:24
"So, the main COG after killing the personnel/leaders, is to TRY and win the hearts and minds Iraqis, and to AGRESSIVELY take advantage of the atrocities that Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents continue to commit against the local populace!
If you’ve been paying ANY attention at ALL, to the news that comes out of Iraq, from Al Qaeda and the Insurgents themselves, they are only TOO painfully aware, that this is their Achilles Heel, adn that they are in fact, LOSING this aspect of the War itself!"
You actually imagine that, at this stage, there is any chance whatsoever of winning Iraqi hearts and minds?
How on earth are you planning to do that? It certainly won't work to say "Well, we've bombed your neighbours, flattened a couple of cities, blown up most of your economy and wasted your (and our) money as best we could, but now, from this day forward we're on your side..."
I mean, in the reverse position, would you now believe a word said by your occupiers?
Sometimes it is too late for even the best strategy to succeed.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 16.10.2006 @ 05:11
"According to them only half as many Iraqis died before the invasion as were dying in Europe at that time. Peaceful Europe with its good health care system."
Do you have a source for that, out of interest?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.10.2006 @ 15:29
"He really should be telling us what a spectacular failure the invasion of Europe was because of those excess deaths, how it just wasn’t worth it."
The invasion of Europe was a spectacular failure. And the people who invaded lost eventually and were tried in War crimes courts for their culpability in those excess deaths.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.10.2006 @ 03:57
"The well respected Iraq Body Count, run by academics opposed to the war, lists nearly 49,000 civilian dead since the invasion. Their methodology is sound and their numbers are based on actual reports from morgues, the media, and the military."
Well respected and, without a shadow of a doubt a massive undercount.
From IBC : "Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication."
It is absurd to imagine that this method will produce anything other than a vast undercount. It should be obvious to all that media reportage from Iraq is patchy at best, so their count must be patchy at best.
IBC provides a bare minimum count. Simple as that.
"Color me suspicious, but if the study had come out 3 weeks after the election, I would be more sanguine about the author’s motives."
I'm curious about this one. As far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with the methodology with this study. The sample is significant (and a carefully chosen sample at that), the error bars are clearly published, the caveats are clear. If, for political reasons, people don't make it clear that this is a mortality study then it is hardly a fault with the research, just with the presentation by others.
It seems to me that a well informed populace is vital for democracy to work. Why would you want this study delayed until it cannot affect people's ability to make a judgement, because the time for judgement would have passed?
Would 600,000 excess deaths be an acceptable number for bringing democracy to Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam? What sort of figure would you say was reasonable for that goal?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.10.2006 @ 03:51
VIET NAM REDUX IF DEMS TAKE CONTROL OF HOUSE
"This is why the Democratic Party is the biggest bunch of snivelling cowards on the planet."
Yesterday;
"Of course, they don’t. In fact, they are cheering Mr. Olberman on to ever higher flights of rhetorical excess and juvenile name calling. Reporter Wallace is a “monkey.†Bush is a “coward.†This is what passes for reasonable dialogue on lefty blogs and Olbermann doesn’t let his audience down."
Comment Posted By Drongo On 27.09.2006 @ 07:26
