Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Morons Celebrating the Latest Victory in Iraq ...

For posterity's sake, I post a comment that may or may not get posted (and might still get deleted) at a popular (with the knuckle-draggers) website. They've recently been cheering how successful the war in Iraq has been going, and how their sources put the lie to the tired, four year old story about chaos in that country. (Which of course, would come as news to bush II who feels compelled to extend tours of duty and ship over tens of thousands of more troops.)


What's that I hear? Someone comparing Iraq to the recently independent United States of America in 1783? That's so inaccurate it's crazy.

You guys simply refuse to quit don't you! Seventy percent of Americans have wised up to the lies and delusions of you bushlovers, and all your self-congratulatory hooting about your superior knowledge isn't going to change that.

It isn't funny anymore people, give it up. It's been longer for the US than World War II. Germany and Japan combined were more peaceful once significant military operations were concluded, than is Iraq today.

If you think it's so peaceful and so successful, why is bush II considering sending 40,000 more soldiers? Why does Iraq have millions of refugees? Why are there over one-hundred thousand dead?

You might believe that you're governments are implementing democratic reforms in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's more a testament to your deep, unmanageable stupidity and gullibility than it is to anything going on in the real world.
Please, for your own sakes, give it up!

1 comment:

thwap said...

It's amazing how impatient some people are to just give up and surrender. Pathetic.

The U.S. finally has a General commanding in Iraq who understands counterinsurgency, and the results are showing on the ground. The media reports speak of a "surge" as though there are just more soldiers being sent with no change in strategy and tactics. There has been very little reporting of the way the additional soldiers are being employed and the results achieved. Lazy journalism again. Michael Yon and a handful of others have put aside the easy cynicism and actually gone to Iraq to see what is happening. THAT is what good journalists do.

I really don't understand the comparisons being made in the media between the length of the conflict in Iraq and WWII. WWII was total war between nation states - with millions upon millions of soldiers and civilians dying. The Iraq war has been an insurgency since 2003. The military and political leadership in the U.S. has been saying since very early on that insurgencies take a long time to quell. Ten years is not uncommon, based on historical experience.

Rather than compare WWII to Iraq, perhaps the media should look at Malaysia (1948 - 1960), Peru (1980 - 1998), El Salvador (1981 - 1992), Algeria (1954 - 1962), Vietnam (1959 - 1975), Angola (1961 - 1989), Zimbabwe (1964 - 1980), China (1927 - 1949), etc.

Comparing the length of WWII to Iraq is comprehensively stupid.

Me:The comparison is apt. The US occupation is so unpopular and so incompetent that it has failed to bring order to the country in more time than it took to the Americans to fight the Germans in World War II.

I fail to see why you brought in those comparisons, Vietnam, Algeria, China, etc., ... just off the top of my head, those long struggles resulted in victories for the forces that in the case of Iraq, would resemble the insurgencies and not the forces of the West.

In other words, your own examples point to FAILURES after long struggles, pointless, deadly struggles, rather than to anything supportive of your position.

What's comprehensively stupid is the way the denizens of this site continue to believe that this is an exercise in spreading democracy and that it's been a success.

The new US-written Iraqi oil law, the way you ignore the Iraqi Parliament call for a US withdrawal, all give the lie to claims about democracy, ... and the millions of refugees and hundred thousand plus dead, and your own mewling drivel about "progress" give the lie to claims of success.

Belisarisu:Thwap, you really shouldn't make statements "off the top of your head". Malaysia, Peru and El Salvador were all victories for the counterinsurgent forces. Algeria was a French military victory, but ultimately a political defeat as the government decided to depart anyway.

The other examples were defeats for the good guys. Democracies have a very difficult time defeating insurgencies, even if their cause is just. The long nature of these wars and the constant, slow accumulation of casualties wears down voters. This is the reason this type of war is a favourite of totalitarian, fascist movements such as al Qaeda, Shining Path, Nepali Maoists, etc.

As for progress - have you even read any of Michael Yon's pieces?

Me:Malaysia was a victory for the British, true. And they managed to wrest some development out of their oil and Japanese investment.

El Salvador and Peru were successes for your team, sure. But like Guatemala, they're nothing I'd like to crow about. I've got a thing against death squads. But to each their own.

Algeria and Vietnam might both have been military victories for the occupiers, but the political costs of such continued victories are beyond the stomach of a sane, democratic electorate.

No, I haven't read Yon's particular pieces of "steady progress" in Iraq. You see, there's been "steady progress" in Iraq for many, many, Friedmans, and I just don't have time for that garbage.

I'll bet you a Marvel No-Prize that Iraq will continue to be a disaster by the time bush II leaves office. I'm pretty confident I don't have to read wonder-boy Yon's articles, because, you see, you guys and your bogus sources were screeching about weapons of mass destruction for a year, and I never believed a word of it, and me and my team turned out to be right, and you guys all had egg on your faces.

This will be more of the same, and, again, I don't have time for more of your nonsense.