Re: Just to throw in an OT


Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 04:39:57 -0700, "Bill C" <tritonrider@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The problem with a stated timetable is that the enemy now has a target
date for when your allied force will be massively weakened. They go
underground, drop the ops tempo to conserve resources, build up
supplies and prepare for just after the pullout. Then all hell breaks
loose, and you gave them everything they needed to win.
My suggestion would be to tell the iraqi government that we are going
to pull out most of our troops in the next couple of years. We will
provide support and troops would be available if needed to come back
and help stabilise things, but that should be a UN mission after Iraq
is on it's own.

Hell, it works both ways and we have the better supply lines. And it
just may cut back on the recruits. And it may put some of the
Baathists out in the open as militia, working on a partition. It may
not be democracy, but equilibrium and barb wire is better than
politics when a political machine is a pickup with a bazooka on top.
Especially when you are a civilian and taking sides means trying to
get from one side of the road to the other.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Except that if we pull out I'm not sure we have the better supply
lines. Iran and Syria are a whole lot closer, and we saw what American
promises are worth 30 years ago. As soon as we pull out our politicians
will run from it and the support will disappear again no matter what
happens, again.
To be honest, at this point I'm tempted to just arm the hell out of
the Kurds and Shia, let Iran join the party, and let them settle it in
a year with concentration camps, mass executions, and terrorising the
Sunnis. It might be less bloody and nasty in the long run as you
pointed out.
The only reason we give a shit about Iran is that they might gain some
leverage in Iraq and hold the oil hostage as they are threatening to do
with their own, and we're doing what about the dependency??
The administration can't see it, or more likely don't want to. Can you
say conflict of interest? Hell even Bill O' Reilly can see this one.
Him and John Kerry, during a good interview, actually agreed that
congress has failed miserably on this one because of all the money the
oil companies spend in political races and on lobbyists.
Reduce the dependence and then, politically, none of this shit matters
anymore than Africa, and it's pretty obvious that NOONE gives a shit
enough there to actually do anything.
Bill C

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont Watch the Tour de France
    ... Curtis L. Russell wrote: ... freezes over. ... isn't Hell supposedt to be dark and cold and the flames don't emit any light? ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Fatty Masters
    ... Curtis L. Russell wrote: ... beating the hell out of each other before slapping them on the ass. ... free beer and all the onion and black olive Ledo's pizza I can eat. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Ullrich: 115 out of 120 !
    ... He grokked the hell out of it - he just used his own definition. ... Curtis L. Russell ... Odenton, MD ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Why Republicans Are Desperate to Bait the Antiwar Left == GOP: the war-pr
    ... A Life Best Left Unexamined ... Heli's Heaven and Hell Radio ... Politics in the Zeros ... Left I on the News ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: christmas presents
    ... give a shit what anyone else here thinks; I don't need a "gang" to ... I realize that regarding politics, AJ and I agree on most, ... I'm lucky to remember my wifes bday and our annniversary. ... Hell, it's pulled in some back and forth from ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)