Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 181 To 190 Of 246 Comments
BRITS YAWN AS IRAN DECLARES WAR
"Reading the British papers, an American is struck by the fact that there is very little outrage among most of the population – at least as it is reported."
There is some outrage, but generally there is recognition that the sailors did the sensible thing. If they had fought back they would all be dead and we would be in a war. Many more thousands of people would die. Oil prices would shoot through the roof. Iraq would explode.
There are times when you have to think strategically.
As for the 7/7 bombing reaction, it was hardly a surprising event, and who were we meant to bomb? Leeds?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.03.2007 @ 03:51
ASTONISHING CYNICISM SHOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS
"In order to eliminate discrimination, the modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate. The problem is, of course, that the ability to discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options as in, ‘she’s a discriminating shopper’, is the essence of rational thought."
Yes, you can find plenty of this stuff in the world. I haven't seen much evidence of people losing the capacity for rational though myself, but there we are. Maybe my point would be best illustrated by a conversation I had with a man while working behind the bar;
Man : "The French aren't worth much. Bloody Germans are a bunch of flatulent gits. Americans? Don't get me started on Americans. etc, etc for about 5 minutes. And you know why British people are better than that lot?"
Me : "No, please tell me"
Man : " 'Cause they're all so bloody arrogant"
Do you see the relevance?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.03.2007 @ 09:52
"As I have written recently, the left-wing segment of the Democratic Party is a hate-filled, intolerant group of extremists hell-bent on the destruction of American conservatives, Republicans and Christians. They display the worst in hypocrisy and bad manners and a visceral, seething angst for those who love American principles.
One hallmark of today’s left-wing Democratic culture is an intolerance for those who disagree with their position. "
You honestly cannot see the irony in this statement?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.03.2007 @ 03:55
"And to those who say we are already “defeated†or that victory and defeat have no meaning in our present circumstances, you might want to answer the question of why the Democrats are so desperate to avoid the stigma of an Iraqi defeat that they openly talk of wishing to place the blame for our failure on the shoulders of George Bush?"
I'd say because they don't want to be blamed for a defeat that is (in their view) not of their making. I think the defeat is a bipartisan thing, both parties went to war, neither of them had a clue what that meant at the time. Now they're stuck in the most craven of positions all round, saving face. But the dems can save face by pulling out, the republicans cannot save face so delay the time of blame. Which is the more wussy option? Who knows. All I know is that one results in more deaths of US troops and the other doesn't.
Yeah, the dems are about as strong as a jelly. The republicans are corrupt and totally incompetent.
Take your pick in the two party system.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.03.2007 @ 09:09
SENATE SUGGESTS TELLING THE JIHADIS WHEN WE'RE LEAVING
"If Al Qaeda and/or Iran are allowed to gain complete control of Iraq, they would have an oil rich country as a base of operations."
Just to bring it back down to Earth, there is no way that Al-Q could take over Iraq. There is also no way that they would split Iraq with Iran.
What is more likely is some combination of Sadrists and Shiite Islamists controlling the center with a constant insurgency in the Sunni areas.
It is always worth remembering that Al-Q *hates* Shiites more than they hate the US. Shiites alike *hate* Al-Q.
And, of course, Iran alreasy has an oil-rich base of operations - Iran.
"in order to win the GWOT decisively, the regimes in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan "
With all respect, you are going into bizarro land here. What do you think would happen in Iran and Syria if you toppled the regimes there? Flowering democracy and moderation again? Hardly, you would end up with a different bunch of Islamists in Iran and would swap a secular regime in Syria for another Islamist one. Has Iraq taught you nothing?
As for the lunacy of toppling the regime in Pakistan, well, the less said about that, the better. What do you think would happen if the US toppled Musharaf?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.03.2007 @ 04:42
"I think commenters like Drongo wildly exaggerate the influence of Iran – even on the SCIRI and Badr Organization. Iran is playing on the fringes of Iraqi politics but their influence is largely rejected by most mainstream Shias. After all, less than 20 years have elapsed since the Iranians killed almost a million Iraqis in the war."
And I think that you virtually ignore who SCIRI (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq remember) and Badr are. Question, who trained the Badr Brigade? Who sheltered SCIRI when Saddam wanted their heads? Where were their leaders in the Iran Iraq war?
Do I think that they take their orders from Tehran? Not all of them, but a few do no doubt.
On the Iran-Iraq war thing, I find it notable that people refer to Saddam as a Sunni oppressor of the Shiites and Kurds when they look internally, but are happy to refer to "Iraq" and "Iran" fighting. If Saddam was a Sunni oppressor then the war was between a Sunni oppressor and the Shiite fatherland. Hell, Jafari was apologising for it a while back and most of the leaders of Iraq spent those years hiding in Iran.
And on the "Only 20 years" thing, France and Germany signed the treaty of Rome 12 years after WWII.
And again, you compare mainstream Shias with their leaders. One group lived through Husseins oppression, the other hid out in Iran.
For heaven's sake, Iraqis have been refering to their government as Iranians for ages. One of the things that buys Sadr street cred is that he didn't run to Iran.
"But the major point still stands – that there can be a tremendous improvement in security which absolutely must lead to political changes or, as you suggest, we will abandon Maliki and his Shia nationalists to their fate."
When? How long do you think would be reasonable before we say "OK, that's it, you couldn't play nice so we're going home". How about a year?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.03.2007 @ 09:35
"“What we must not do is to give up just at the moment we’re starting to turn things around in Iraq.â€"
This from the man who claims that an American can wander around in many part of downtown Bagdhad quite safely. I wouldn't put much faith in McCain's pronouncments.
Let's face it, the initial PR about this surge followed the usual "turning point", "One last heave", "We are winning" storyline, but it still ignores the strategic fact that winning = further empowering corrupt, murderous, Iran friendly islamists.
Even if we were, which, given the fairly obvious fact that it isn't working (as the man says, there is no military solution, and if you see a political solution coming then you must have better eyesight than me because Allawi's efforts just fell to bits again leaving SCIRI/Dawa/Sadr undisputed kings of the hill again), is pretty dubious.
Oh and, while we're there, do you see Al-Sadr being pressured? No, not really. About the only good news we have is that some Sunni tribes are turning against Al-Q in a big way but don't for a second confuse that with them stopping hating the US.
Face it, your choices are;
1) Stay, get shot at, wear out your military and creep closer and closer to the terrible mistake that would be war with Iran, and watch Iraq burn or
2) Leave, don't get shot at, rebuild your military, avoid war with Iran and watch Iraq burn.
You've lost already, in fact you lost long ago. The only question remaining is "How many of your own do you want to die before you accept that?" The democrats seem to be saying "As few as possible", Bush seems to be saying "You can't kill enough of us for us to accept that".
Let's be honest. The Iraqi insurgents know that in 2008 you will have a democratic president. They know that when that happens they will be looking for a way to end this war. Writing down timetables doesn't change that fact, they know their timetable already.
And that doesn't make them traitors, it means that they have a different opinion on what is best for the US.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.03.2007 @ 07:32
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
"I don’t trust my elected leaders much either. The problem with only a defensive strategy is you never gain any ground. The enemy who is constantly playing offense will eventually defeat you."
Nonsense. A defensive strategy is one in which the defensive is the primary mode of engagement, not the only one. The more likely result, as is happening with the current US offensive strategy is that you exhaust yourself while everyone else gets stronger on the sidelines.
In the case of the US you are perfectly built for a defensive strategy, and poorly built for an offensive one. You have a fickle population, unused to sacrifice, or dicipline, or unquestioning loyalty, and are seperated geographically and socially from your enemies. Meanwhile you have strong alliances and strong trading partners.
I still think that you are wrong in your estimation of the threat from Russians, Chineese and Islamists joining to nuke and take over your country.
"At a minimum, failure to achieve a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the global war on terrorism will mean the end of the US as a major power."
If this is true then you're over as a major power because it is not going to happen.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 29.03.2007 @ 04:50
"What do you mean by win?†What I mean by winning is eliminating the ability of the Islamic terrorists and their Communist allies to pose an existential threat to the US. Currently these groups pose a survival threat to America. This cannot be allowed to continue. If they did succeed in taking out the US, Western Europe and anyone else who was even remotely allied with the US probably would not be far behind. That is unless they surrendered."
Well, obviously we see the world differently. I see no hints whatsoever that the Russians are planning a first strike nuclear war. I see no reason for them to want to do so, and your piece only covered that as far as "This would accomplish their goal of being the world’s sole power."
Frankly this is dangerously paranoid thinking because, based on your certainty that the Russians are willing to risk all out nuclear war in order to be top dog, you seem to be advocating total war against Afghanistan, Iran and Syria which would inevitably lead to more regionalised and even globalised war.
In addition, the idea that the Russians are funding the Chechens is beyond absurd, akin to 911-truthers paranoia.
You say that we don't appreciate the risks, I say that your imagination is running away with you and that it is pushing you towards advocating absurdly risky actions that you have no need to perform.
It strikes me that merely upping your readiness levels and hardening your command and control would be a better move than invading Iran and Syria.
Still, you're right, this thread isn't about this, it is about Mr.Gonzales, a man who is pretty obviously yet another liar in a position of trust. Given the general uselessness of your elected leaders, I wouldn't trust them with anything but a defensive strategy to be honest.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.03.2007 @ 04:54
"I’ve actually never watched “24.†Occasionally I read Rick’s summaries. I don’t watch much tv."
Oh, you should, it would be right up your alley. Great show.
"While the Russians are engaged in a war with Chechnya, they actively support Iran, Syria, and other Islamic terrorist supporting nations."
Like I said, they play the game with nations but not with Islamist terrorists. They hate the Islamists and the Islamists hate them.
"Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia is the best friend of Islam."
Yeah, and Maggie Thatcher was the best friend of Sinn Fein.
Being a friend to Islam is not the same as payrolling a covert Islamic army in the US. It just means "We need to wrap up these guys in trade deals and freeze the West out"
"The Russians could occupy the US. The idea would be to inflict as much damage as possible as possible during the initial attack. We would expect the Americans to respond vigorously but it may be too late."
(a) How would they occupy you?
(b) Why would they occupy you?
Just imagine for five minutes, invading and occupying Russia. Does that sound like fun? Something that would be to your benefit? Something that would actually work?
"MAD is not applicable here because due to the extremely poor state of US human intellegence assets the US would likely not have a chance to respond to the attack."
Huh? You're saying that when Convoys of Russian ships are coming over to invade your country in repeated waves, you wouldn't have time to nuke them?
Or that enough nuclear weapons could be detonated to completely remove your command and control before you retaliated?
"We can win but it will require a supreme effort and likely supreme sacrifice."
What do you mean by win? How is fighting in Iraq helping you defeat the Islamist sleeper army in the US, or the invading Russians?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 27.03.2007 @ 01:39
