Comments Posted By mannning
Displaying 461 To 470 Of 475 Comments


This is a wonderful post.It is a post that Americans can agree with today and tomorrow. Let us leave the arguments on the way ahead in Iraq for Tuesday.

Comment Posted By mannning On 27.05.2007 @ 16:32


Didn't want to keep my post, huh? Newt and MittI ideas and management!

Comment Posted By mannning On 15.05.2007 @ 00:02

Couple Newt with Mitt: Idea Man and Manager.

Comment Posted By mannning On 14.05.2007 @ 21:44


Some further thoughts:
-Diplomacy from weakness is hardly going to do any good. Not against Islamics. This route in not to be relied on for a solution.
-They talk about catch basins for refugees. What a fine target for rockets, of which there seems to be an enormous supply. The refugees will be considered to be traitors to the cause, and deserving of being slaughtered.
-Putting the catch basins on the border is a wonderful idea. I hope they don't mean within 20 or 30km of any border; in other words, out of artillery range for Iranian and Syrian batteries. Not that this distance matters if Iran and Syria join in the fight, except to our exposed troops, and the refugees we are supposedly protecting.
-Brookings people seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths in that report. You can read into it my conclusion subtly presented: victory is the only real way out, but they don't want to come right out and say that for political reasons.

Comment Posted By mannning On 15.05.2007 @ 12:35

As I read the tealeaves, there is one more event to come for President Bush:

We are building up our forces in Iraq and Kuwait now under the cover of the "surge". My tealeaves say we will hit 250,000 troops there by the end of the year.

When Bush and Cheney state that we will not let the Iranians get the N-bomb, I believe them. My tealeaves say that the critical time is early 2008.

I believe we will strike Iran in about February, 08 with air power and missiles. As I have posted earlier on this blog, we will hit their comm, command & control, air bases, missile sites, AA sites, and then their multiple nuclear sites with non-nuclear cavebusters from B-2 bombers.
There will be considerable collateral damage and casualties. in Iran.

What happens next is a good tealeaves don't say...but it will get bloody. That is why we are beefing up in Iraq despite the attempts to shut the war down by our very own two-faced Dems.

It occurs to my tealeaves that the Dems are actually hastening the Iranian strike timetable by threatening to stop the war. Once the strike has occurred, it would appear that we will be fully committed to a win in the ME. ... or suffer a huge loss.

At that point, a draft will be possible, especially if the Iranians hit back in some way in the US as they have threatened. This scenario explains to me why the Dems are so concerned; they must know quite a bit about this plan, and know as well that they really cannot stop it if the President wants to go forward with it. The logistics are already in motion.

I don't know whether to bless my tealeaves or curse them.

Comment Posted By mannning On 13.05.2007 @ 22:45

Bottoms; Get this straight. With the will to win, the rest follows. We draft men. All we need. Remember wartime drafts? We have the resources.

When the will isn't there, there is no way to win. So it is simple: you either support winning, or you are supporting losing. Never mind the ideas of graceful withdrawal. There is no such thing.

If you think losing is a valid option, you will get your chance in heaven to apologize to the Iraqi who are shaughtered when we draw down our forces.

It really doesn't matter how we got to where we are. That is the blame game, and it is not helpful in our war today. What matters is what we can do to get the results we want now.

Comment Posted By mannning On 13.05.2007 @ 15:11

What can we do now?

1.Institute a draft (won't happen because of the pacifistic attitudes of Congress and a percentage of the people)
2.Flood Iraq with troops and surveillance gear. Perhaps another 500 thousand would do it. Don't ask the Iraqis permission, and put their sovereignty on hold. Tell the Iraqi that this is needed to quell the insurgency, and we want their support.
3. Tell Iran to kiss off or be bombed. Add Syria to that message. Warm up the bombers. Build armed forces able to take on Iran and any other Islamic nation by the end of 2008. (Pacifism will stop this from happening.P
4. Truly occupy the country, announce martial law, set up curfews, block all motor traffic till cleared, and shoot on sight anyone carrying a weapon without an official uniform. Ban robes and burkas outright.Ban gatherings of more than 5 persons on pain of death, except at mosques, but supervise everything happening at mosques.
5. Search every structure for weapons and explosives. Imprison able men found with weapons at home for the duration.
6. Clear and hold territory and built up areas.
7. Take over the oil well heads, pipelines,pumping stations and storage tanks to pay for things we need.
8. Stop reconstructing things. Give humanitarian aid only.
9. Close the borders tight. Shoot on sight any crossers.
10. Forget about hearts and minds in conflict areas until we achieve adequate security. (This meme is set hard into Liberal minds, so it won't happen.)
11. Set up the government with a US Supreme Ruler over the current government.
Dictate the solution to revenue sharing for oil, and begin to make it happen.
12. Go after and decimate all militias, and outlaw them.
13. Reward those who support us, and deny those who don't. This covers food, water, clothing, gasoline, medical aid, whatever.
Ration their food.
14. Be prepared to stay in Iraq for at least 5 more years, gradually shaping up the government, financial sharing, distribution of food and necessaries, and put the able men to work on reconstruction using their oil money.

That is the general idea of what we COULD do given the will, determination, and plain old fortitude. (Won't happen because many Americans have lost their way.) We had rather step back and watch the slaughter, it seems. The tripwire idea is in my view nonsense. If it trips, what then? No plan makes sense.

Comment Posted By mannning On 13.05.2007 @ 14:51

1. We have far too few troops in Iraq to start with.
2. We cannot halt a conflagration between Shiia and Sunni, if the surrounding nations kick in their troops as well--some 2 million men.
3. It doesn't matter where we are in the region if a bloodbath erupts, since we would lose our little force fairly soon anyway.
4. We do not have another 500 thousand troops to send over there. Congress, Clinton and Bush have seen to that by holoding down our force levels for the last 14 years.
5. Looks like we cannot save face with withdrawals at all, and we cannot prevent a massacre either, without massive troop insertions.
6. To some, I suppose that potential Iraqi lives lost is not a consideration in wanting to get out of town. Shame on such hypocracy.
7. These often used phrases "too many mistakes," "time to cut our losses," etc. are ignoring the current situation in favor of defeat by historical mistakes, as opposed to grabbing the nettle by both hands and winning henceforth.
8. The parallel with Saigon is becoming all too real, with Congress hell bent on abandoning the Iraqi to their fate. Liberals, in their shallow analysis, ignore the fact that our abandonment meant over 2 million lives were lost in Nam, Laos, and Cambodia to the actions of their Communist masters. How many millions of deaths directly attributable to our withdrawal will they ignore in Iraq?

This is totally disgusting.

Comment Posted By mannning On 13.05.2007 @ 00:01


So much for taking the low road.

Drongo Said: "What would have been a good idea would have been to construct the constitution at a leisurely pace, not shoehorning in long term disasters for the benefit of a set political timeline. The US electoral timeline and desire to see “turning points” was one factor that led us here, make no mistake."

Exactly. By taking the low road, we allowed a power shift before all of the terms and conditions were spelled out clearly for the three main parties. With fewer troops in place, it was easier to start and maintain an insurrection. With little control over Baghdad and the Borders, we could not keep the peace, always fighting the lack of real troop power to shut things down tightly. Security was secondary to the attempt to create a government that had a real chance of making an equitable deal for the three parties. Seems that we stepped back just at the time when we could have brought the parties together more fully.

I wonder whether our military men see the need for massive surges now, or to cut and run? We may have little choice.

Comment Posted By mannning On 8.05.2007 @ 13:39


'Though I have to admit the general regional war is a very possible scenario as well. We’re all guessing here really"-- Drango

An understatement of classic proportions! If we are guessing, then I will take the current situation, where we are running the Insurgents out of ammo, our nation is not being attacked directly, and there is some hope of controlling Iraq, and putting Iran on notice that we aren't far away with a goodly force and airbases. Withdraw and it is indeed anyone's guess as to the ultimate outcome. Reeinforce our troops and it makes things a lot more difficult for the insurgents all around. Further, I like the idea of having a strong force next to Syria, just in case they get ambitious in the near term. I also like the idea of putting it to the Iraqi by saying you can have your government and your oil, but only if you comply fully with our agreements. Otherwise we will indeed turn things around into a full occupation and seize the oil fields.

Benevolence does not work with Islamists, but force does. I agree that the current Islamist government is playing a friendly charade with us, just waiting till they can gain sufficient power to throw us out. We should disabuse them of this notion by declaring that we will be in Iraq until we deem it fit for us to leave, so you have the choice of insurrection or full cooperation; take your pick. We put a delay in their sovereignty for our purposes, not theirs.

The whole strategic idea is to split the ME Islamic nations geographically, isolate Iran, and kill as many Islamofascists as show up for the war--over there--and with Iraqi help. The terrorists should have to battle their way into Iraq, not stream through the porous borders with Syria and Iran. As someone said, insurgents get tired of war, their base dwindles, and their opposition grows, given enough time. We need a few years with the illusion strongly built that we can stay as long as necessary.

Obviously, the nation needs to get behind this push, or it will not succeed. We, as a people, have not been put to the question properly, but I believe it could happen, if not right now, then after the 2008 elections. The people do not know what the real stakes are in Iraq, nor do they remember the commitments we have made to the Iraqi.

Perhaps it is true that only one of two things could mobilize the nation behind the war: 1) another attack of serious proportions in the US; or an Iranian adventure that becomes a cause for war, like their attempt to capture some of our troops once more.

There is a third possibility, which has many ramifications. We suddenly attack Iran's air defenses and communications/command and control points, and then their nuclear facilities from the air. This has been expected by some, including me, in early 2008. The "Surge" fits that pattern closely, as more and more troops are eased into Iraq under that rubric, not only to further subdue Iraq, to cover for the loss of Brits in Basra, but also to face Iran with significant additional forces.

Given that Iran retaliates, we are launched into yet another, much larger, phase of the ME war. We then must look to our backs in Iraq!

That is one reason for not executing this attack until 08. We need the time to build up our forces, both at home and in Iraq, with stocks of weapons, vehicles, and the training of new troops. There might be an urgent campaign this Summer/Fall to prepare the public for this new phase of the war, as well as a call for mobilization of reserves and a draft.

The other reason to wait might be to give the opposition in Iran a year or so to do something significant.

This would present the new President, from whichever party, with an on-going war, but after major damage to the Iranian's nuclear capability has been accomplished. The Bush saga ends there.

So I am guessing too!

Comment Posted By mannning On 3.05.2007 @ 13:02

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (48) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48

«« Back To Stats Page