Something is Surging

It sure as hell isn't freeance and democracy!

BAGHDAD - Baghdad shook with bombings and political upheaval Wednesday as the largest Sunni Arab bloc quit the government and a suicide attacker blew up his fuel tanker in one of several attacks that claimed 142 lives nationwide.

The Iraqi Accordance Front's withdrawal from the Cabinet leaves only two Sunnis in the 40-member body, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to pull together rival factions and pass reconciliation laws the U.S. considers benchmarks that could lead to sectarian reconciliation.

The U.S. military announced the deaths of four more American soldiers, including three killed in Baghdad on Tuesday by a powerful armor-piercing bomb. Washington says these types of bombs are sent from Iran. The fourth soldier was killed by small arms fire on the same day. A British soldier also was killed Tuesday in a roadside bombing.

The American military announced it found a mass grave in Diyala province northeast of the capital. The grave contained 17 bodies of mostly Sunni Muslims — including women, children and elderly people — killed by al-Qaida in Iraq, the military said in a statement. U.S. forces did not say how they knew the attackers were al-Qaida in Iraq.

Altogether at least 142 Iraqis were killed or found dead, including 70 in three separate bombings Wednesday in Baghdad. The violence came after July ended as the second-deadliest month for Iraqis so far this year, but with the lowest U.S. death toll in eight months.

Iran! OMG Iran is giving the "insurgents" bombs! Would be fairly interesting if "Washington" (whatever that is) said that a large number of the "foreign fighters" were Saudis. But then, President Bush regularly sucks the cock of the Saudi prince (in a rhetorical sense - I think), so we can't have that sort of news becoming public knowledge.

It is interesting that the article states, U.S. forces did not say how they knew the attackers were al-Qaida in Iraq. The lefty blog-o-sphere has been very critical of the MSM in the past month for simply stating what the military says as fact. Part of a reporters job is to verify assertions. It appears that the criticism has been effective. More recent articles have been wording references to al-Qaida very carefully, which is the proper thing to do. al-Qaida is a small part of the "insurgent" fighting force in Iraq.

Meanwhile, this past Sunday, a couple of "liberals" from the Brookings Institute penned and op/ed in the NYT, claiming Surge On! We're whooping ass now!

Only... not so much.

Greenwald has been writing about it this week, in full mockery of the absurdity of our news media. A news media that is also becoming very fearful of the big liberal blogs. Bill O'Liely has been cheery picking comments from the Daily Kos and ranting about them on his "program" - naturally causing the lefties to highlight far more absurd rantings from his web site. It's a really weird tit-for-tat between Faux and the blog-o-sphere.

Doug does similar here, where he posts a cherry picked comment from some whacko and claims it's the mainstream liberal point of view. It's really all so absurd. He refuses to debate me, or even quote me when he refers to me in his posts, but will post a cherry picked comment from a crazy person.

That's reason #56 why you're a fucking liar Doug... and a coward to boot.

I suppose some people could claim I cherry pick comments from whackos to post on my blog here.. seeing how I quote Skydiverick and Doug frequently. Hell, I even posted a comment, in it's entirety, from that waay waaaay scary crazy fucker Phil. Maybe I'm guilty of cherry picking quotes from lunatics as well.

I've also been thinking a bit about this comment that Rick left, in response to a post I'd written on the American soldier's point of view on the war.

Sky Dive Rick said...
What you carelessly leave out is why they disagree with Bush's handling of the war. They believe, and I know this because I have many friends in Iraq, that the troops disagree because they believe that the rules of engagement are too restrictive and that Bush is catering too much to assholes like you rather than fighting the war. And lay off Mrs. Pistachio. She's been out of teaching for a dozen years or so and this blogging thing is new to her. It's amazing, Tom, that you basically go through life taking apart what everyone else writes, rather than having an independent thought of your own.

There is no reason for me to "lay off" anybody. She posted on his bat-shit crazy blog, on the internet, and demonstrated horrible writing skill, claims she was a teacher, and I'm supposed to ignore that? It doesn't matter if the "blogging thing is new to her". Writing is writing irrespective of the medium, isn't it? I pointed out the idiocy of unqualified teachers in America, and the harm they do to this nation's youth. You can't expect students to have a command of the language if their teachers do not. It would be analogous to me teaching a computer science class without understanding the syntax of the programming language I was teaching. Typos are one thing, everyone does that. But misunderstanding basic rules of grammar whilst also a "teacher" is absurd.

I don't give a fuck who it is, when you write political fodder on an internet blog, you are exposing yourself to response. Tough shit.

So, how was I "careless" in leaving out the "why" when the article I linked to described the causes?

Experts cite three causes of eroding morale among military families: longer and multiple deployments, the continued chaos in Baghdad, and the growing death toll - April, May and June were the deadliest three months for U.S. troops since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Notice, it doesn't say;

Experts cite one cause of eroding morale among military families: Not being able to kill enough people.

You accuse me of being careless without actually reading what I linked to.. but that's fine. It raises a larger question that I've posed before but have yet to see a coherent response. Maybe you could write one for me Rick. This would be a great topic for your blog.

Explain why the "rules of engagement" need to be changed, and be specific. That would be more than Doug has done. It's always a vague statement, with zero substance (which is reason #485 why Doug is a shitty writer).

Lets have fun with google and quotes, shall we?

However, I wish Bush would get a little bolder, telling the Dems to get their act straight and quit sending him B.S. bills. And I wish he's take away the rules of engagement that are handcuffing our troops and let them fight this war the way it should be fought: to win.

And how do you "fight to win"? Shitty writer Doug doesn't say.

And the Left through their onslaught of defeatist propaganda, and socialistic agenda, have created a set of rules of engagement that handcuff our troops and make them unable to wage this war as it should be fought. Our brave troops are being court-martialed for doing their job (Haditha is a great example of that) and are being killed because of the restrictions that have been placed on them by a politically correct ideology that rivals Islam in regards to how dangerous it is. This idea of sacrificing our troops through these restrictions are fueled by the Democrats and the activists who would rather see us lose this war and become dependent upon the socialists of Europe and the Islamic ideological machine, than remain the free Republic we have been for over 230 years.

God I love that quote. It's one of the most insane statements I've ever read on a political blog.

And how to "to wage this war as it should be fought"? Shitty writer Doug doesn't say.

Rick claims his friends in Iraq are upset about the "rules of engagement" as if those rules were written by "liberals" instead of, you know, the military command under authority of the Republican administration. Somehow, George Bush was strong enough to "stand up" to those dirty fucking hippies in launching a bogus war, but not strong enough to authorize our military to kill people in the proper way that would lead to glorious victory on the battlefield.

An interesting column from a West Point grad Army Colonel, here. It explains why the "rules of engagement" are the way they are, and references past conflicts as examples.

But in practice, over time the few restraints fell away; evacuations were incomplete; warnings delivered by leaflet missed their intended audience (or could not be read by the largely uneducated peasantry); ground fire by "Viet Cong" brought immediate and massive retaliation. And it was the perception that U.S. forces did not consider Vietnamese lives as of equal value to U.S. lives that lost Washington the battle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese and cost Vietnam another generation of its youth.

Of course, in the mind of the Great American Right Wing Loon, there is no point to "hearts and minds". There is only brute force acceptance of the American way. Live with it, or die. Never mind that that philosophy is impossible.

An interesting look at the horrible conditions the American soldiers face, when trying to deal with an enemy that has no "rules" of it's own, from Newsweek here.

The jihadis' grand strategy is to provoke a war between Islam and the West, as Al Qaeda's leaders have openly boasted. But the more immediate goal is to provoke overreactions like the killing at the mosque. To win, in short, they simply have to keep operating. Unconventional-warfare experts have a saying: when an army fights insurgents, it's like playing chess against an opponent who's playing poker. The Americans may have checkmated the resistance in Fallujah—but the incident at the mosque left the insurgents holding a full house.

Of course, the solution is to kill more people.. at least as far as the loons are concerned. The loons also insist that because the "enemy" doesn't have any rules, neither should our military. That's abhorant and immoral - but then, that's right wing ideology for you.

Still, I'm more interested in specifics. Since Rick is an expert (and I'm not being flippant, he's an ex Navy Seal), I would appreciate he write an essay on what the current rules are, what should be changed, and how it is anticipated that it would change the direction of the war. Doug says "fight to win". What exactly are we not doing now, and how would we "win" by changing? Be specific and not merely write slogans regurgitated from other right wing propagandists.

My understanding is the military has the authority to track down and kill insurgents. They have the authority to protect themselves with very deadly force. What part of that needs to change?

Finally, this brilliant observation;

It's amazing, Tom, that you basically go through life taking apart what everyone else writes, rather than having an independent thought of your own.

What the fuck? Going "through life"? This is my blog. I write about news, politics, culture, entertainment, etc. Part of doing that is highlighting and rebutting the writing of other people. It is a tool I use to make a point, and present a persuasive case why my point of view is superior. What part of that is so hard for you to understand Rick?

It's odd that Rick claims I don't have an "independent thought" of my own. Ages ago I did a word count on my blog. It was something like 2 hundred thousand words. I'm probably well over 3 hundred thousand now - more than enough to fill 4 novels.

Many genres seem to have succumbed to supersizing. A mass-market western, mystery or SF novel used to run to 60,000-70,000 words. Now they're more likely to hit 90,000 words. Fantasy novels seem to be about 125,000 words—per volume, with some series going on and on. Mainstream fiction can be anywhere from 55,000 words (about the length of many mass-market romances) to ten times that.

It's also odd that Rick thinks I'm so vapid, when my writing is referenced in poli-sci classes.

I teach an American Public Politics class and may use some of your viewpoints for student commentary discussions sometime... could really use your postings for more fun and much deeper reflection!

Recently, I've written, at length, on single-payer health care systems, and how we could drastically improve health care in America, while saving money at the same time. I've written about "ethics" and "morals" and the impact of the dumbing down of America. I've written a ton about the dangers of religion in the world, and the evils perpetuated on Americans by Christianity in particular. I've written on gay-rights, and the absurdity of the MSM. I've written about tid-bits of history, and interesting people. Just yesterday, I wrote about JS Bach, and provided a nice piece to listen to.. hoping that people might follow the link and read about him.

I mean.. Jesus Fucking Christ Rick, click on the side bar for any particular month for a wealth of various topics. Here, try this one from August 2006. It starts off with a discussion on Mozart, and my travels to Europe.. impressionist painters.... uh.. economics..

Hell, I wrote this;

My sense is that there is a recession coming, and housing prices are going to drop off sharply. If the Republicans keep control of congress in the fall, that will accelerate the process. I think we'll see it by next summer.... For others in hotter areas, it looks like the peak is quickly approaching. Certainly I would not buy a house at an inflated price right now. You'll get creamed.

I was half right. There hasn't been a sharp recession, but housing prices are dropping off, sales are slowing, and foreclosures are rampant.

God damn.. I did a word count on August 2006, it's 22,837... for one month. True, a portion of it is other material I've quoted, but still.. that's just one month, and I've been doing this 2 and a half years.

Fuck you and your "independent thought" bullshit Rick. I've posted more content in one day than you have in the entire history of your sorry ass blog.