Any Questions?

For all the curious, this news story is precisely why an immediate withdrawl of US troops in Iraq is a catagorically bad idea.,2933,294907,00.html

For the more conspiracy minded amongst us, here is something to think about.  Instead of Bush attacking Iran (which would indeed be highly foolish, and political suicide to boot), imagine if Iran was to suddenly come across the border with the sixshooters blazing.  All of a sudden we have a war that we didn’t start… then what are you going to do?  Allow Iran to take over one of the largest oilfields in the world?  Imagine if Iran takes over Iraq (which they would love to do considering their history with the late Hussein)… not so bad, right?  Wrong!  All of a sudden, Iran has majority control over almost a fourth of the oil supply.  With the world’s dependence on oil, if Iran decides to grab the world by the crotch, it would be all too simple (thanks in large part to the cartel OPEC setting the global price on oil).  You want something to fight for?  How about your A/C?  With “global warming” on the rise, I can’t imagine what Hillary Clinton would do if the oil stopped flowing out of the middle east.  By the way, this is kind of tongue in cheek, because at last check, less than a third of our oil actually came from “over there”.



~ by xristosdomini on August 29, 2007.

10 Responses to “Any Questions?”

  1. I beg to disagree on several counts.

    (1) “Bush attack Iran”? This is definitely lefty lingo. The truth is that America goes to war. In the recent case of the invasion of Iraq, for example, the Congress authorized the actions of the president, and that authorization remains in force, and has been consistently reaffirmed by actions of congress. It is only the “hate Bush left” that seems to have forgotten that this is America’s war on Terror and America’s liberation of Iraq…
    True, GW could order military operations against Iran without consulting the Congress or NATO or the UN, but that’s not what happened in Iraq, and there’s no reason to believe that GW has a sex-scandal to cover up, so I think a surprise attack against Sudan, uh no, Iran, is unlikely.

    (2) Iran is already attacking Iraq’s sovreignty, covertly through traitorous Shia extremists in southern Iraq, and overtly in the North in border skirmishes against the Kurds. The US is aware, and I’ve heard no sign of an actual response, yet. I think the rest of the middle east is so nervous about Iran’s imperial aspirations that they would be unmoved if America were to punish Iran along the Iraq border, and to use air assets to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The big objections would be from Russia and China, who seem unworried about the possibility that Iran’s ambitions for a global Islamic revolution must include them ultimately, as well…

    The Iranians boast a really large Army – I wonder if Iran would sit at home while western forces bomb them? Iraq did for ten years under the “no-fly-zone” of the UN/Bush/Clinton administration. The problem with a large army is you gotta get them to the battles, and lacking air superiority makes that really hard.
    Iran is doing the only thing that gives them any hope at all – trying to scare and bully us. Pity that it seems to work. Stupid us.

    (3) What will Hillary do? Probably keep campaigning – shes still got a minimum of 15 months for this cycle, and I hope she gets to continue campaigning as the Junior Senator from New York for a good long time after that…

  2. Lol, agreed. Bush attacking Iran is something of a misnomer. As I said in my earlier post (Since when?!) I take great issue with people who say that Bush has done more to destroy the Constitution and America than any other President. The only thing you MIGHT be able to make that claim on was the wiretapping program, and guess what… Congress just rubber stamped it. Which means the Constitution is still intact.

    I do, however, feel that if America was to go to war with Iran right now (with troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan) it would be something of a foolish tactical move. I admire the generals of the United States and the Presidents for wanting an all-volunteer force, however it puts severe limitations on two real issues. First is patriotism, the second is the capability to multi-task. Patriotism comes under fire because so many people have so little idea of what being a soldier really means, so they have very little appreciation for A) the soldiers and B) what they are fighting for. Also, having nothing but volunteer forces limits the possible size of the military, meaning our war-waging power is severely limited. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest a draft or a mandatory service law, but I think having some legal incentives (IE, tax cuts) for service members to encourage more people to enlist might be in order.

    The idea that Iran is tampering with the atmosphere in Iraq, while unproven, is somewhat of a given. Based on the firey past relationship between the two (anyone remember the Iraq-Iran war back in the 80’s?), it doesn’t take much convincing for this author to believe that there is some monkey-business going on. The Iranian army does have one big advantage, however… their “President” isn’t afraid of the political backlash when he uses them. Based on their past, I think it is quite possible that they might try a formal incursion across the border into Iraq. It looked like Turkey wanted to do the same a little while back. According to the Iraqi PM, Turkish marines were amassing at the Turkey-Iraq border, with intent to move into the Kurdish controlled areas. Too bad nobody listened to him… might have dashed Turkey’s EU hopes. The Middle East is an amazing mess, ain’t it?


  3. I think the the main thing that keeps us from aggressively dealing with Iran using military force is a lack of real conviction.

    The world-wide war is really against islamic extremism. Iran is one of the few “states” that would qualify as islamic extremists. Nice Americans would love to pull more of this BS about overturning the government and leaders without aggression against the “peaceful people”. The truth is that the people have given themselves over in submission (bondage) to the evil bloodthirsty god of Islam, and could not be counted on to side with liberators.

    Just like in Lebanon.
    Just like in Gaza, and Yemen, and Syria.

    Islam exalts its own leaders beyond accountability to any electorate. Any war against extremism that leaves the islamic religious leaders functioning has failed. The US hoped that the support of Ali Sistani would make the post-overthrow governance of Iraq easy and Iraqi-directed; the truth is that the shiite and sunni clerics institutionalize the sectarian hatreds there as they move inexorably apart in pursuit of their own grasping self-promoting interests.

    Modern “nice” Americans are horrified at the idea of war against civilians and clergy, in churches (mosques). They lack the conviction that islamic extremism is evil and that it’s adherants are the enemy regardless of how harmless they look.

    I’m not advocating a new crusade, but I’m going to boldly say that democracy is not the salvation of the islamic states. Jesus is. Only Jesus.

    Until God changes the world, military force will be required to resist Islamic tyranny, and military force can only work when we get real about who the enemy is. We’ve got to get over being squeemish about offending other extremists, and do the real job.

  4. weeeeell idk much about the politics of the situation and i know i should. but its really hard to WANT our troops to stay over there and fight when my fiancee is over there risking his life everyday….now i know when we went over there to begin with it was fighting terrorism and all….but are we changing anything now??idk maybe you’d have to be there to see,and now i sound non supportive of my fiancee but its hard to have someone you love over there and not want them to come home….waking up everymorning thinking “maybe today there will be some miracle and he’ll come home” yeeeees its stupid and childish to think that but hey thats how it goes…and yes i know its better to have our men over there but thats also why its so hard,our men and they are loved and missed and worried about every day….i guess thats why we’re all in a rush to pull them out…we’re thinking with our hearts and not our brains….ok ok ok so i totally made this into a girly “i want my baby home” etc etc etc kinda thing sorry ok now bring in the smart people to really be able to discuss these things with you lol

  5. Kristy, that is actually a very honest reaction, and I do appreciate your position. It is also the one reason that I can guarantee that no one in the overcivilized West LIKES a war. Recently I was listening to NPR (it’s the best thing I got when I don’t have my iPod and 88.5 is cheesy) and there was a quote on Iraq that got me thinking. It was in referrence to the GOA report on Iraq progress that will be overly negative… The “political expert” was noting the contrast between the White House’s last statement on the various Congressional “benchmarks” and the GOA’s assessment of those same benchmarks. Here is what he said… “Well, when you compare the Iraqi military to the Iraqi military of two years ago, yes, there is much improvement… However, if we were dealing with a clean slate, then the performance of the Iraqi military is spotty at best…” The problem I see with this quote is that we aren’t dealing with a clean slate. When we compare “progress” in Iraq and aim to be realistic, we need to realize that we are dealing with the Iraq of five, ten, fifteen years ago… the Iraq that had Hussein gassing civilians for no reason other than their heritage, the Iraq that had innocent women getting gang raped by the loyalist armies, the Iraq that was in the pursuit of WMD’s. Essentially, the calls to end the war have really saddled the Army with the impossible task of building a country from the ground up, on top of another country that refuses to fade or be assimilated, all in the span of a couple years. That being said, yes, we are making a difference now when compared to the Iraq under Hussein. If you are wanting to compare Iraq to some kind of ideal that doesn’t even exist in our own country, then it would be very hard indeed to nail down any kind of progress.

    While I empathize that it is very difficult to have people over there dying(I actually have a couple of people that I consider friends in Iraq), we also need to remember that the military is an all-volunteer force. The people who are in the military wanted to be in it. Unfortuntely, as a part of being human, being in the military includes the idea that you might have to go to war at some point.

    On Iran, this situation goes far beyond politics. Iran is ruled by a religiously motivated violence that cannot be solved politically… only through force. At this point, it would be morally indefensible to flee Iraq and leave them to deal with the possibility of Iranian invasion. The real problem is that an invasion of Iraq by Iran is inevitable… with or without Bush being in office. The only question is when that invasion will take place, and what kind of preperaton and allies will the Iraqis find in that hour? Even though Iraq is a muslim nation, I think it is their right to live out from under the thumb of Iran… that being said, they at least deserve that someone give them a chance at survival. Since we are the ones who demolished their country, I think it makes the most sense that the burden falls on us to give them that chance. And yes, Jesus is the only real hope that muslims really have… from where I sit, democracy is just a way to apostasize en masse.

  6. ok so i understood most of that yay…i know we’re making a difference and it would be DUMB to pull out i just wish it was over with AAH! and my guy is always telling me “kristy thats what we all signed up for…to fight for our country when we’re called on” its just really hard to deal with…thus me thinking with my heart not my head…which is why i generally keep my mouth shut when it comes to politics lol.

  7. Sorry, I disagree again:
    >> Since we are the ones who demolished their country

    The U.S. military took very many risks to preserve Iraq infrastructure IMHO, and that’s part of the problem we have now. Had we *actually* insisted on an invasion where we take ground, systematically destroy anything military the enemy can use, and sort out the enemy soldiers from the refugees, it would have taken a huge long time to work our way across Iraq, and doubtless there would have been notable skirmishes along the way. But Iraq would have been conquered – the teeth would have been bludgeoned from the “insurgency”.

    Our military was able to use speed, cunning and technology to decapitate the Iraqi government in just a few days, a great accomplishment that makes for great TV, but as we have learned to our dismay, also leaves a lot of room for unconquered things to come back and bite us.

    No Iraqi leaders have had to surrender. No one had to sue for peace, and accept terms. The enemy ran away to their homes, businesses and mosques carefully protected from collateral damage. Some were grateful to be liberated, but some resented being invaded, and they all look alike – civilians with guns.

    This whole deal would have worked great if removing Saddam Hussein from power was all that was needed to pave the way to a peaceful Christian democracy under the creation-loving hand of the God of the Bible. Our army could bring the top bully to justice and be done.

    Who remembers the totally ludicrous missions in the beginning days of the war, where our military was deployed to protect their oil fields and their power plants and their water supplies from their sabatuers? Who remembers our soldiers at risk to prevent looting? Who remembers their suicide/homocide bombers attacking women and children in markets and schools?

    Islam does not reward “love your neighbor” Christian ethics.

    Our soldiers would be much safer today IHMO if they didn’t have to worry so much about breaking things and could just go ahead and fight the real war.

  8. Lol, great TV it is… great military strategy, it isn’t. Unfortunately, everybod is so focused on looking nice for the cameras (because they never lie, right?) that if we let the soldiers actually fight a war, it would create a fecal storm in the EU and the UN. I think the idea that the strategy was based on, was that the shock and awe of actually toppling Hussein would “sacre off” the insurgency back to Iran and we could use whatever hardware was left to rebuild their country quickly. The fatal flaw being that not everybody in Iraq hated Saddam Hussein. Essentially, we are fighting a Zombie-Iraq… one that is still loyal to the IDEALS of Saddam Hussein, even without his particular face.

    So really there are three different types of “insurgents” in this “metling pot” of Iraq. You got the guys who liked Hussein because he gave them power. You have the Al-Qaida guys who see a chance to hit the American military and make the most powerful nation on earth run screaming (just look at Congress to gather my point). Lastly, you have the opportunistic ones that see an opportunity to grab power over the country. All three groups have different motivations and different solutions… but all of that is a wash if they are dead. If we weren’t quite SO focused on our “global reputation” we could let the military run free in Iraq and actually deliver some blows to the insurgency. However, the main reason we CAN’T let them run free is because the insurgents are just as you stated… civilians with guns. So how do you figure out which civilians have guns and which don’t? The main focus of the military (unfortunately) is not winning, but avoiding collateral damage. While noble and admirable, it is also using a toothbrush to wash a dumptruck… too small of a tool for too big of a job. Now, I seem to remember the President saying that any war we started would be long one because of the rebuilding process… I don’t think anyone remembers that anymore either.

    I guess I can kind of sympathize with the position that the Military finds itself in, in that it is commisioned with the task of winning a war with a nation that has no borders (radical Islam… or Peaceful Islam for that matter), while rebuilding a nation that was just pimp-slapped with carpet bombs. The thing that makes all of this REALLY fun is the fact that there is so much oil underneath Iraq. Protecting the oil fields is justifiable, in my mind anyway, to prevent a huge shortage in the global supply… but protecting power and water plants in a country you are trying to defeat is really asking for it.

    It is true that the Iraq war was anything but an orthodox one. The only leader that was “dealt with” was Hussein himself… the military was not disbanded, just reformed… the police force was put in place by asking people if they wanted to enforce the law. Hindsight is 20/20, but public relations is terribly near-sighted. I think the major issue that we are fighting with right now is not so much that we didn’t do a good enough job going INTO Iraq, rather it is that we went in with the mindset of defeating Saddam Hussein rather than conquering Iraq. I’ll wager that if the war had been billed more along the lines of an actual national struggle rather than fighting with ONE dictator, it would have adjusted several ills of the war’s progress.

    Several things that I will still harp on… We haven’t even lost 4000 troops in almost 4 years of hot combat… that is an astoundingly low rate. I recently heard of a raid in the northern territory where the Military offed something like 125 insurgents and we had one soldier with the sniffles (I’m not joking)… sounds like a decisive victory. We haven’t been in a war long enough to justifiably have “war fatigue”. That would be a reasonable excuse for Korea and Vietnam (‘Nam boasted some 20+ years of US military commitment), but not 4-5 years in Iraq. Why the anti-war protests? Because war isn’t “nice”… it isn’t “politically correct”… Now, some people have a grave moral issue with war, and that is understandable… but war is a necessary evil until Christ returns and the earth is perfected to be the habitation of the Father.


  9. Playing “Monday Morning Quarterback”, obviously…

    I wonder how the Iraq thing would be different if we had taken over/liberated just the shiite south of Iraq first, stopping for a while [months, perhaps] between Baghdad and Basra – long enough to help the shiites set up a greatful liberated democracy that needed protection from the Sunni north and the WMD that they certainly had (in everyone’s opinion).

    Would Saddam have surrendered?

    Would the sunni government in Baghdad have the will or means to resist?

    Would there have been WMDs?

    Would Iran choose to aid the Sunni north against the US allies of the liberated shiite south?

    What about those rascally Kurds?

    What about the wobbley-kneed “coalition of the willing”?


  10. well, at least I know where I got my sense of diplomacy and tact from… I think the amazing speed that we used to get to Baghdad has its merits as well. Lets face it, by moving as quickly as we did, Hussein didn’t have any time to deploy chemical or biological weapons on our troops. So while the safer strategy in the long run would have been a slower and more intentional march through Iraq from Kuwait, I can almost guarantee that the American causualties in that opening campaign would have been much, much higher.

    While the idea of setting up the Shiites with their own government apart from Iraq would put pressure on the Iraqi government to respond, I don’t think we would have liked the response any more then we do right now. I mean, first off, the Sunnis wouldn’t mind if the Shiites went away. Secondly, once you set up the Sunnis with their own government, you can’t just fold the Shiites and Kurds into said government when you reunite the three parts. Thirdly, you can’t just leave Iraq in three parts because the Iran has a green light to take all three out one by one. Which would be more beneficial, three small countries that are in the mode of fending for themselves, or a bigger country full of people that really don’t like Iran any more than they like each other? Would the situation now have been different if we had only liberated the shiites first and camped for a while? Sure, but I think we would be facing a much bloodier battlefield then we are right now.

    I think really this is a more along the lines of “Monday Morning Armchair Quarterback”. I think I like what Mike Huckabee said (for once)”… asking if Iraq was the right war at the right time or if it should have been fought differently is the wrong question. The right question is what do we do now that we are here?”

    PS, this would be my first thread with 10 or more comments… so woo to the hoo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: