ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 13, 2014

A sacrifice for nothing

The fall of Fallujah, met with complete indifference in the very neocon circles that endlessly proclaimed the supreme importance of the Iraqi Adventure, sickens the Marines who fought there:
“I don’t think anyone had the grand illusion that Falluja or Ramadi was going to turn into Disneyland, but none of us thought it was going to fall back to a jihadist insurgency,” he said. “It made me sick to my stomach to have that thrown in our face, everything we fought for so blatantly taken away.”

The bloody mission to wrest Falluja from insurgents in November 2004 meant more to the Marines than almost any other battle in the 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many consider it the corps’ biggest and most iconic fight since Vietnam, with nearly 100 Marines and soldiers killed in action and hundreds more wounded.

“Lives were wasted, and now everyone back home sees that,” said James Cathcart. He fought as a private first class in the Marines in Falluja in 2004, and was discharged with post-traumatic stress disorder. For many veterans of that battle — most now working in jobs long removed from combat — watching insurgents running roughshod through the streets they once fought to secure, often in brutal close-quarters combat, has shaken their faith in what their mission achieved.
It shouldn't shake their faith in what their mission achieved, because one can't have faith in nothing. It should shake their faith in the US political system and the commanders-in-chief who are abusing the trust of the American military.

Let's hope they remember this the next time the usual suspects are beating the war drums for attacking Serbia Iraq Afghanistan Syria Iran.

Labels:

223 Comments:

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous BAJ January 13, 2014 4:06 PM  

This is sad and only serves to prove that imperialism is inconsistent with the functioning of a modern state.

Anonymous Salt January 13, 2014 4:10 PM  

"Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie." - Simonides

The 300 were actually defending something. Us? As General Smedley Butler said, "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."

Anonymous Edjamacator January 13, 2014 4:25 PM  

They served their purpose serving the political whims of idiots with nothing better to do. Send the neocons back over to deal with the insurgents. Let's see how quick they are to call for battle then.

Anonymous cherub's revenge January 13, 2014 4:48 PM  

“Lives were wasted, and now everyone back home sees that,” said James Cathcart.

Cathcart - that's a very old Anglo-American name. I get the feeling he's not the first in his family to be duped by Uncle Sam. Probably some of them even after fighting for the Confederacy. Can't fix gullible.

Anonymous Spooner January 13, 2014 4:49 PM  

War is a Racket.

The only beneficiaries are war criminals, ie. the politicians and the generals.

Anonymous Josh January 13, 2014 4:51 PM  

The fall of Fallujah, met with complete indifference in the very neocon circles

McCain and Graham used it as an occasion to call for sending troops back into Iran.

Anonymous Noah B. January 13, 2014 4:55 PM  

Brilliant plan. Step one -- invade an oil rich country, costing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Step two -- leave.

Blogger JartStar January 13, 2014 4:56 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Krul January 13, 2014 4:56 PM  

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

But then they aren't really dying pro patria, are they?

Anonymous Espantoon January 13, 2014 5:07 PM  

I recall feeling much the same way back in '75, watching the evening news as South Vietnamese city after city fell to the NVA, remembering the men I knew who were killed or broken for life in and around those places, supposedly to keep RVN from going Communist. That's when I began to realize that in the long run flag-waving patriotism is a crock, all soldiers die in vain, and the only people who benefit are the the politicians who start the wars, the merchants of death who profit from them, and the bankers who finance it all.

Next time there is a war, we ought to make it clear that a president who takes us into war on his own say-so outside of the Constitution, the congressmen and senators who vote to fund the war, and the media propagandists who drum up war fever, and their families, all have a large red target on their chests which will remain until hostilities cease. After all, why should clueless teenagers and innocent civilians pay the butcher's bill when the people who had them killed survive to live out their days in comfort on government pensions, speaking fees and book deals?

Anonymous YIH January 13, 2014 5:26 PM  

Thought I'd pass this along: The .gifs from the weekend's games.
The first one is pretty funny, Ahmad Brooks of the Niners not only leapfrogging the Panther's C but clear over Cam Newton as well.

Blogger Clint January 13, 2014 5:31 PM  

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 5:34 PM  

There's a tendency the last 70 years or so to try to analyze military operations in non-military ways, and - most bafflingly - to keep a straight face while doing so. Some things military are very hard for a civilian mind to grasp. One of the reasons we've been failing in war - the logic of which does not operate the way normal civilian logic does; see Luttwak's Strategy for an explanation - is because we can't do, or if we do we can't sustain, anything that doesn't make make sense to the most militarily ignorant mommy in the country.

Hmmm...let's try this: Leonidas and his 300? Total waste or not? Buford's cavalry at Gettysburg? What a waste, they couldn't hold Herr, McPherson, or Cemetary Ridges, nor keep the ANV out of the town. All those live lost, and for what? And then there's the German glider Op at Eben Emael; why they didn't even really need the damned crossing point. What a waste!

Ahem.

Now, sure, one can consider the entire Iraq adventure a waste, immoral, whatever; and it's at least an arguable claim. But there's nothing special about Fallujah that wouldn't be equally true of any private blown to bits by an IED. Moreover, who has what at the moment matters not a bit, it's who has what at the end. Oh, dear, the Huns are at the Meuse again...oh, well, we conquered Germany anyway.

And I don't know about anyone else's, but my crystal ball's been recalled to the factory.



Anonymous Bernard Brandt January 13, 2014 5:35 PM  

For my sins, I agreed when the call came to prosecute the second Gulf war. This was predicated on the UN findings at the end of the first Gulf war that Saddam had come within six months of obtaining a working thermonuclear weapon. At the time of the second Gulf war, a reasonable fear existed that Saddam had retained that advantage. I still contend that the war was worthwhile, if only to eliminate Iraq as a potential nuclear power.

I contend that the problems ensued not with the winning of that war, but the losing of the peace. The Allied plans assumed that Iraqi police, civil service, government, and armed forces would remain intact, and that a swift transition of power to them would be enacted. Due to the arrogance of Rumsfeld, and the incompetence of his appointee, Paul Bremer, that plan was thwarted, and the American people had been handed a tar-baby. The dreams of Condy Rice and Shrub the Younger to impose democracy upon the Iraqi people did not help matters, either.

So, instead of getting the job done and getting out then, we are trillions of dollars poorer, Iraq blasted back to another stone age, and high tailing it out after losing thousands of U.S.

Now Israel wants us to do the same thing with Iran. Fuck them both. The most I will countenance is to let Israel go in with bunker busters and destroy the nuclear facilities at Natanz, Busheyr, etc. On their own time, money, and materiel. And that's only because that course of action would be preferable to Iran lobbing a nuke or two at Tel Aviv and Haifa, and Israel using its arsenal and its Samson Option to turn the entire Iranian and Arab world into a self-illuminating parking lot.

Blogger kurt9 January 13, 2014 5:37 PM  

It should shake their faith in the US political system and the commanders-in-chief who are abusing the trust of the American military.

Beware of the wrath of the legions.

Anonymous 11B January 13, 2014 5:37 PM  

“It made me sick to my stomach to have that thrown in our face, everything we fought for so blatantly taken away.”

It's much more than losing Falluja. That quote could be written about everyone who has fought for the US from 1776 to the mid twentieth century.

Anonymous Krul January 13, 2014 5:41 PM  

Re: Clint,

Wilfred Owen's response to the old lie was poignant, but I prefer General George S. Patton's response:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

Anonymous GreyS January 13, 2014 5:51 PM  

Fallujah?? Is that where I put my freedom? Because I'm constantly told they are fighting for my freedom.

Blogger Glen Filthie January 13, 2014 5:53 PM  

Well - sitting back and letting these moslem psychopaths mass murder and build nukes isn't the answer either. (Call me a neocon, I don't care. Neville Chamberlain was a naïve twat too).

But I am a reasonable man - how about we compromise? Bomb Iran FORWARD into the stone age - and then split! No nation building, no UN inspections and circle jerks, no Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moores or other peacenik fart suckers that want to blood dance on the coffins of US servicemen?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 5:55 PM  

Actually, Bernard, though I don't think (read: I am more sure of this than I am that the sun will rise tomorrow) we have the political and moral horses to do it, there's a lot to be said for invading Iran, and then partitioning it. Yes, partition would have been the wise thing to do in Iraq too, had it been possible. It wasn't possible because of Iran. Why? Because no one of the three major parts of Iraq - we can call them Kurdestan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan - could stand up to a unified Iran.

But, contemplate Shiastan and the Arab parts of Iran linked up. Azeristan fliched away from Iran. Etc. The half of Iran that's actually Iranian, ultimately left poor and isolated because the Iranian parts of Iran have little or no gas or oil, and all the bordering parts we'd strip away left completely under our domination, in fear of even a poor Iran.

Be kinda fun, ya know?

Anonymous Josh January 13, 2014 5:57 PM  

Well - sitting back and letting these moslem psychopaths mass murder and build nukes isn't the answer either. (Call me a neocon, I don't care. Neville Chamberlain was a naïve twat too).

You just Munich'd the thread. Congrats.

Pakistan has nukes and they are even Moslem. They have yet to nuke anyone. Why is that?

Anonymous Josh January 13, 2014 5:59 PM  

there's a lot to be said for invading Iran, and then partitioning it.

Because that worked so well everywhere it's been tried.

Why should we partition Iran? For shits and giggles?

Not to mention we can't afford to do that. We're broke.

Blogger JartStar January 13, 2014 6:00 PM  

Well - sitting back and letting these moslem psychopaths mass murder and build nukes isn't the answer either.

Do you believe that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon they will use it in a preemptive strike? If so, who? What evidence do you have of this?

Anonymous David January 13, 2014 6:01 PM  

When you fight in a foreign country you can expect no less than this, unless you plan to stay and fight for the rest of your life.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:02 PM  

I think I just explained to you why it's a good idea, Josh. When, by the way, has partitioning Iran been tried?

Anonymous Bernard Brandt January 13, 2014 6:04 PM  

Tom,

Sounds a lot more reasonable (besides being a lot more fun) than the current fever dreams coming from the Senior Advisor bint currently infesting the White House.

Agreed, though, that we would have been better advised in returning Iraq to the three provinces of the previous Turkish Empire. And give the oil bearing lands to Kuwait.

Anonymous Starbuck January 13, 2014 6:06 PM  

Pakistan has nukes and they are even Moslem. They have yet to nuke anyone. Why is that?-Josh

Well... that would be because they haven't launched any yet. Duh... Next!

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:07 PM  

Jart:

It's something we at least have to consider. There are clearly some men there, even some clerics, who are sane and sensisble. But it's not clear that they're a majority or that, even if they were, that they will remain so. When a country goes out of its way to appear to be religious nuts, they're entitled to be taken at their word that they are, in fact, religious nuts, not necessarily dissuadable or deterrable.

I am often surprised that so few understand why the Iranians want nukes. It's not to match anyone elses nuclear arsenal, not even Israels. It's to deter us, specifically us, from a conventional invasion they likely know they have no hope of defeating if we tried, short of nukes. And the really cool part, from their POV, is they don't even need a delivery system. They could use them as remotely detonated mines along likely invasion routes to include ports.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:09 PM  

That probably doesn't work well, Bernard, because a weakened Iraq is fodder for a strong Iran. That's why I say "partition Iran" so that we can set up a system of petty states, with no need to nation build, all around it to contain it, even as we impoversh it, with all those militarily petty states dependent on us for the kind of defense we can actually provide.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:11 PM  

Not necessarily, David. "Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."

Blogger Scott January 13, 2014 6:12 PM  

Let's hope they remember this the next time the usual suspects are beating the war drums for attacking Serbia Iraq Afghanistan Syria Iran.

Agree in principle, but I have to say Iran is a different animal altogether. Unlike the other vibrant muslim countries, Iran is fast pursing nuclear weaponry. Although the US is many land masses and oceans away, the notion that a nuclear Iran isn't a direct threat to our national security is a gross miscalculation I hope we never have to test.

Anonymous Just_Michael January 13, 2014 6:18 PM  

Warmongers are tools of the devil.

I've long suspected it, but I'm totally convinced of it now.

Anonymous Bernard Brandt January 13, 2014 6:19 PM  

No, Tom, my meaning was FIRST partition Iran, then Iraq. And give Iran's oil lands to the UAE.

Or to use another well worn latin phrase, Divide et impera

You know, ya have ta keep reminding them barbarians: "First pillage and rape, and THEN burn!"

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:31 PM  

No, no, no. It's, "First rape, then kill, then pillage, and _then_ burn."

Seriously, they'd really have to go hand in hand. And trhe UAE isn't in an especially good position for ruling, say, the gas rich Azeri area.

The other option, which might be better, is to recreate the Ottoman Empire. But I suspect the Turks are too smart for that.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 6:31 PM  

Whatever... my Titans just hired Ken Whisenhut. Just typing that made me throw up a little.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2014 6:36 PM  

> Moreover, who has what at the moment matters not a bit, it's who has what at the end.

The one thing I can guarantee, Tom, is that it won't be us.

> I still contend that the war was worthwhile, if only to eliminate Iraq as a potential nuclear power.

And who would a nuclear power Iraq have been a threat to?

> Fallujah?? Is that where I put my freedom?

Nah. But rumor has it they've got it under lock at key at the NSA headquarters.

> I am often surprised that so few understand why the Iranians want nukes. It's not to match anyone elses nuclear arsenal, not even Israels. It's to deter us,

Pretty much everyone here understands that, Tom.

> Although the US is many land masses and oceans away, the notion that a nuclear Iran isn't a direct threat to our national security is a gross miscalculation I hope we never have to test.

Your hope if futile, so you'd better hope you're wrong.

Blogger stats January 13, 2014 6:37 PM  

"Iran is fast pursing(sp) nuclear weaponry"

No they are not. Why would you say such a damn fool thing? Have you not been paying attention? There is no evidence, none, that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Another idiot claiming this time "it's different." Sigh. We are doomed. Nothing can overcome the arrogance of the truly stupid.

Anonymous GreyS January 13, 2014 6:38 PM  

"Whatever... my Titans just hired Ken Whisenhut. Just typing that made me throw up a little."

Awesome. Good news for Charger fans.

Pretty happy he was the OC, not the HC because we'd be in a Norv-like situation-- just good enough to not fire him, just bad enough to get a mid-round draft pick-- year after year after year. With the way the coaching merry-go-round works, I knew with a playoff year by the Chargers he'd likely get a HC gig somewhere.

In August I wouldn't have guessed how relieved I'd be to see him go.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2014 6:40 PM  

> my Titans just hired Ken Whisenhut.

And the Japanese just bought Beam, as I mentioned in the earlier thread.

As for Fallujah, the first battle there was when I knew we were in another Vietnam. You don't let militants who have taken up arms against you, and you've then beaten, just walk away. You kill them. When we didn't do that, I knew we had lost.

Anonymous Ferd January 13, 2014 6:40 PM  

"Next time there is a war, we ought to make it clear that a president who takes us into war on his own say-so outside of the Constitution, the congressmen and senators who vote to fund the war, and the media propagandists who drum up war fever, and their families, all have a large red target on their chests which will remain until hostilities cease. After all, why should clueless teenagers and innocent civilians pay the butcher's bill when the people who had them killed survive to live out their days in comfort on government pensions, speaking fees and book deals?"

No, the US will have no more wars. America can't afford anymore.

That and the feminized and homoerotized Armed Forces will pee in their pants before they place high heels on the ground. The future is demonstrated by the use of drones by our Dear Leader. Weaponized drones with both nuclear and conventional armaments will lead the way. Perhaps, mercenaries will be used.

Sorta reminiscent of the crumbling Roman Empire?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:44 PM  

For the warrior there is no thing more blessed than a lawful strife.
Happy the warriors who find such a strife coming unsought to them as an open door to Paradise.

Bhagavad Gita, II, 31 and 32.

"I suppose every man is shocked when he hears how frequently soldiers are wishing for war. The wish is not always sincere; the greater part are content with sleep and lace, and counterfeit an ardour which they do not feel; but those who desire it most are neither prompted by malevolence nor patriotism; they neither pant for laurels, nor delight in blood; but long to be delivered from the tyranny of idleness, and restored to the dignity of active beings."

--Samuel Johnson

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 January 13, 2014 6:48 PM  

my Titans just hired Ken Whisenhut

Wait, are you trying to tell me that the man who thought John Skelton was an NFL caliber QB is not the man you hoped would get the HC job of your team?
Crazy talk.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 13, 2014 6:48 PM  

A waste or not, hopefully the horror tribal suited show strengthened, deepened their faith/resolve with a heart towards Christ. Maybe most of all this group will withdraw their present consent towards any of these insane futureless old men.


Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:49 PM  

We're an odd empire, James. It is us if we ultimately get what we want.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 6:52 PM  

As for Fallujah, the first battle there was when I knew we were in another Vietnam.

No we weren't. Vietnam was the perfect storm of problems, from a COIN point of view. Iraq was comparitively easy, though of course our aestheticians, masquerading as moralists, made it more difficult than it had to have been. Though even their influence was probably not as baleful as Rummie's and the Neocons'.

Anonymous YIH January 13, 2014 6:56 PM  

@Bernard Brandt:
that Saddam had come within six months of obtaining a working thermonuclear weapon.
The first Gulf War there might have been a slight possibility that was true.
Fast-forward through the successful prosecution of that war, 12 years of sanctions and 'no-fly zones' in 2/3 of the country (and the occasional 'wag the dog' missile strikes) and I doubted that Iraq could even be a threat to Kuwait let alone anyone else (which still hasn't changed).
Could ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' have worked?
In 1991/2 possibly, in 2002/3 not a chance.
Remember ''the surge'' and the sacking of Rumsfeld was only done because it became impossible for the neocons to 'spin' any kind of ''good news from Iraq'' (as one such dubbed it).
When McInsane/Palin said ''we need to remain in Iraq for 100 years'' that's when it became clear we'd lost.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 7:01 PM  

"Pretty much everyone here understands that, Tom."

If they understand what you left in, James, then they probably don't understand. Try the whole quote: not merely to deter us, not to match our nukes, but to deter a conventional invasion. It's a very different issue.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 7:05 PM  

Seminary, not Cemetary. Hate when that happens.

Anonymous YIH January 13, 2014 7:08 PM  

Yes, I understand the Samson Option:
In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.
How nice for you, if it comes down to defending Italy vs. Israel, guess which country I'll side with?

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer January 13, 2014 7:17 PM  

I still remember the shameful buildup to the war, when so many self-styled "conservatives" jumped right on board with a plan that could only be described as "liberal interventionist." To make matters worse, they openly mocked and taunted and turned their rage on those of us who called them out for their idiocy from the right.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 7:17 PM  

No, YIH, that appears to be an author's comment, not a van Creveld quote. And the author did not appear to be claiming it was a good thing, but rather as a possibility if the Euros tried to interfere with removing the Palestinians from territory Israel controls.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 7:24 PM  

"And the Japanese just bought Beam, as I mentioned in the earlier thread."

The Japs dearly love Bourbon. Therefore I am not terribly concerned with the quality of future products. It may in fact be in better hands now.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 7:30 PM  

"Wait, are you trying to tell me that the man who thought John Skelton was an NFL caliber QB is not the man you hoped would get the HC job of your team?
Crazy talk."

I'm concerned. To say the least. Don't get me wrong... when he was on the field this year... Locker looked goodish. Maybe even better than goodish. But he has to stay on the field. So that's one job for Whiz... and Locker is cheap next year so he will definately be on the roster but they have to bring in someone else.

Locker is no Warner. Ruston has drafted pretty well... so will he get Whiz a new toy at QB to push Locker? I think he has to. But if he does is he not creating the same post warner mess Whiz had in Arizona?

I am not optimistic.

Not at all.

Anonymous 11B January 13, 2014 7:30 PM  

But I am a reasonable man - how about we compromise? Bomb Iran FORWARD into the stone age - and then split! No nation building, no UN inspections and circle jerks, no Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moores or other peacenik fart suckers that want to blood dance on the coffins of US servicemen?

It is telling that ending mohammedan immigration into our nation is not on your list. Which illuminates a major difference between neocons and paleocons. What good is bombing Iran when you are losing your nation? Unless bombing Iran is for the benefit of somebody else, I don't get it. If you are interested in protecting the United States there seems to be so so many other areas to address that would be more beneficial to the US than bombing Iran.

Anonymous Cheddarman January 13, 2014 7:38 PM  

I still agree with George Washington's advice in his farewell address, that we should have commerce with all nations, and stay out of the affairs of all of other nations.

We have never really followed that advice, sadly, and have morphed from a republic of free men to a bankrupt empire run by and for the benefit of the super rich/banksters.

Anonymous Gapeseed January 13, 2014 7:42 PM  

Regardless of the justification for the second Iraq war or its costs in blood and treasure (and it was a mistake), the US had purchased for itself at high cost a relatively enviable strategic position. Meanwhile, the always bloodied but never bowed Afghanis were replaying the Soviet occupation, bleeding the US over relatively worthless turf. If you were going to stay in one place, you would choose Iraq and let Afghanistan go, particularly after the cassus belli had been hunted down in Pakistan. Instead, Obama got it exactly backwards, and now Iraq is lost and Afghanistan remains the quagmire it has always been.

And why no love for Whisenhunt? He's not Belichick, but he took the Cards to the Super Bowl and then dealt with an atrocious offensive line and quarterback carousel. Assuming Locker stays healthy, the Titans have the makings of a pretty good team in a weak division.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2014 7:43 PM  

> We're an odd empire, James. It is us if we ultimately get what we want.

A dying empire Tom. With leadership not competent to manage a local school district.

> Try the whole quote...

We all of it. That's why I didn't bother to quote it in its entirety. We've discussed the matter quite a few times.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2014 7:44 PM  

Don't ask me what happened to the word understand that I typed between we and all. :(

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 7:51 PM  

"Agree in principle, but I have to say Iran is a different animal altogether. Unlike the other vibrant muslim countries, Iran is fast pursing nuclear weaponry. Although the US is many land masses and oceans away, the notion that a nuclear Iran isn't a direct threat to our national security is a gross miscalculation I hope we never have to test."

No Iran ISN'T pursuing nuclear weaponry. And even if they did, it would be absolutely irrelevant. North Korea has nuclear weapons too. So does Pakistan. So does Israel. Why should anybody give a shit?

Furthermore, Iran has literally never started a war in it's history. Never.

You are absolute heathens.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 7:54 PM  

Someone or -ones has / have expressly discussed that the Iranian nuke is to deter conventional attack? If so, good, as this would be one of only two places I can think of that would then understand it.

We're a weakened empire. "Dying"...well, everything is dying or growing. It's not clear we won't grow again, though quite possibly without our present form of government.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 8:01 PM  

The Assyrians would be most surprised by that news, Tommy. Do you suppose Cyaxares somehow didn't get the word? And Cyrus? And Cambyses? And Xerxes?

And of course they're trying to get nukes; don't be absurd. Any country on the US' enemies list that isn't at least _trying_ to get nukes would be insane.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 8:05 PM  

"But I am a reasonable man - how about we compromise? Bomb Iran FORWARD into the stone age - and then split! No nation building, no UN inspections and circle jerks, no Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moores or other peacenik fart suckers that want to blood dance on the coffins of US servicemen?"

>wants to invade another country while killing THOUSANDS of people for no reason whatsoever
>implies that Iran is behind the stone age

Honestly, you literally, seriously deserve to be mutilated. Same thing with Kratman.

Anonymous 11B January 13, 2014 8:08 PM  

Someone or -ones has / have expressly discussed that the Iranian nuke is to deter conventional attack? If so, good, as this would be one of only two places I can think of that would then understand it.

That's the lesson the US has taught the world. If you don't have nuclear weapons, you are subject to an airstrike or two if we get sideways. If you have nukes, then you are part of the club, and disputes are handled in a more civilized manner.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 8:10 PM  

"Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 8:01 PM
The Assyrians would be most surprised by that news, Tommy. Do you suppose Cyaxares somehow didn't get the word? And Cyrus? And Cambyses? And Xerxes?"

I said Iran, not Persians. The Islamic Republic in Iran has been involved in 1 war, which it was in because Saddam Hussein attacked them.

"And of course they're trying to get nukes; don't be absurd. Any country on the US' enemies list that isn't at least _trying_ to get nukes would be insane."

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 8:16 PM  

"And of course they're trying to get nukes; don't be absurd. Any country on the US' enemies list that isn't at least _trying_ to get nukes would be insane."

Considering that the attempt to acquire nuclear weapons would invite a war, not pursuing them would be a good idea. Of course, we have a bunch of rabid dogs on this planet that are in need of being cleansed and that think unprovoked murder is a good idea, so you might have a point.

Blogger Opened Eyes January 13, 2014 8:26 PM  

Those Marines were cowardly for not fragging their COs.

Blogger JartStar January 13, 2014 8:27 PM  

It's to deter us, specifically us, from a conventional invasion they likely know they have no hope of defeating if we tried, short of nukes.

I had never thought of this tactic, but it makes much more sense than MAD with Israel. Of course the question remains: does Iran have the right to defend itself with such tactics?

Anonymous Godfrey January 13, 2014 8:31 PM  

In the long run most if not all war is for nothing.

Blogger tz January 13, 2014 8:32 PM  

How much more blood would they be willing to spend to have maintained Fallujah?

And the residents didn't welcome them as liberators - the city was half destroyed - places like hospitals where the "collateral damage" weren't able to be saved.

And why should they be bothered? It wasn't like they were defending the constitution or the liberty of US Citizens or anything like that.

Note there is no Transportation Liberty Administration, Department of Homeland Liberty, nor National Liberty Administration.

But the faux news crowd feels secure.

Blogger Feather Blade January 13, 2014 8:38 PM  

Tom Kratman said..."Seminary, not Cemetary. Hate when that happens."

Eh, po-tay-to, po-tah-to...

Anonymous YIH January 13, 2014 8:40 PM  

@Tom Kratman:
If you want to lay claim to all the territory of Israel ''from the river (Nile) to the Euphrates'' you Mr. Kratman (and your fellow ''members of the Tribe'') should do so.
Just get the hell out of my country, and take as many of your fellow ''members of the Tribe'' as you can.
If Woody Allen wants to diddle kids, fine, he should do that in Israel, not in this country.

Blogger Glen Filthie January 13, 2014 9:01 PM  

">wants to invade another country while killing THOUSANDS of people for no reason whatsoever
>implies that Iran is behind the stone age

Honestly, you literally, seriously deserve to be mutilated. Same thing with Kratman."

And you should be fired off a catapault Tom!

Vox himself has refered to these mudflaps as being 'semi-civilized' and he is too generous with that, IMHO. Anyone that seriously proposes giving those fig farming goat feltchers the power of nukes - and the means to project them - cannot be taken seriously. Good gravy - those yodelling mutts have been threatening us with nukes they haven't even gotten yet for ages - its a matter of public record. President Imadinnerjacket in Iran said the second his nukes are operational Israel is gone. Pakistan has said the same thing of India.

Politics is not a zero sum game - you can't just sit it out and expect all to be well.

Anonymous Gapeseed January 13, 2014 9:05 PM  

As a Christian, I find my isolationist tendencies torn on the issue of Israel. I want to give Israel every benefit of the doubt, as I suspect based on voluminous scripture that Israel is in God's grand plan, and most specifically, Jerusalem. On the other hand, the relationship between the US and Israel is high maintenance and, when viewed with the eyes of man, something of a resource sink. Are we to bless Israel at all opportunity? How does this inform US domestic policy and culture, where (mostly secular) Jews advocate social policies I find appallingly anti-Christian? Apologies if this has been covered in volume when I was inattentive, but any thoughts on this issue would be very helpful in my clarifying my own.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2014 9:08 PM  

> Someone or -ones has / have expressly discussed that the Iranian nuke is to deter conventional attack?

Yep. You sound surprised. :)

I'm pretty sure Vox himself has expressed that exact notion on several occasions. You can check with him if you want verification. I'm also pretty sure a couple of other posters have also voiced it. At the very least, it's the central point I took from the discussions, so if they weren't making that argument they convinced me anyway.

> We're a weakened empire. "Dying"...well,

You may be correct and I may be overly pessimistic (or optimistic, take your pick). However, I doubt I'll be alive to settle up on any bet we might make. These things do tend to take a while to work themselves out.

> Of course the question remains: does Iran have the right to defend itself with such tactics?

Does the right of self defense exist for aggregate groups of people? That's a good question, but I don't see any obvious reason why it shouldn't. I'm open to suggestions and arguments though.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2014 9:10 PM  

> Pakistan has said the same thing of India.

And yet India is still there.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 13, 2014 9:11 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous YIH January 13, 2014 9:12 PM  

@The real Nate:
The Japs dearly love Bourbon. Therefore I am not terribly concerned with the quality of future products. It may in fact be in better hands now.
I don't doubt the Japs care about quality, of course they do, but you're Southern, do you honestly think they understand the culture that made Jim Beam?
I can hear it now, ''yeah, he's a Japanese head coach, but if he can get the Tide back to the title why not?''
I can understand why you think that, ''whatever it takes to win''.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:13 PM  

Dear YIH:

Stupid bitch, I'm a Catholic.

Now fuck off and die.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 13, 2014 9:15 PM  

Fallujah?? Is that where I put my freedom?

Apparently *we* did. Unfortunately the bad guys took it to either Syria or Iran.
*looks around furtively*
I believe they are hiding our freedoms in the same locale as Sadaam's WMDs!

No, the US will have no more wars. America can't afford anymore.

Since this thread has already been Muniched....
They said that about post WWI Germany also.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:16 PM  

Then Tommy, you are a) making a pointless observation, and b) forgetting, covneniently, about surreptitious offensive war, which they were clearly waging against us in Iraq.

"Invite a war." You mean the one we've been assembling fleets and armies to wage? Yeah...no.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:19 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 9:20 PM  

"Vox himself has refered to these mudflaps as being 'semi-civilized' and he is too generous with that, IMHO. Anyone that seriously proposes giving those fig farming goat feltchers the power of nukes - and the means to project them - cannot be taken seriously. Good gravy - those yodelling mutts have been threatening us with nukes they haven't even gotten yet for ages - its a matter of public record. President Imadinnerjacket in Iran said the second his nukes are operational Israel is gone. Pakistan has said the same thing of India."

There's absolutely no way this guy isn't either insane or is legitimately retarded. (I'm talking IQ of 60 here)

"President Imadinnerjacket in Iran said the second his nukes are operational Israel is gone."

Honestly, this is some Poe's Law level shit here.

But out of sheer curiosity, care to source that quote? And more importantly, why should the US engage in a war for US safety?

The truth is that Iran is the heir of one of the greatest people/cultures of this planet. The stuff you're referring to related more to people like Somalis, Gypsies and Afghans/Pashtuns. Persians are actually fairly civilized.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 9:25 PM  

"And more importantly, why should the US engage in a war for US safety?"

Israeli safety of course.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:25 PM  

"Same thing with Kratman."

Bring it on, Tommy, I'm not hard to find.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 9:29 PM  

"Then Tommy, you are a) making a pointless observation, and b) forgetting, covneniently, about surreptitious offensive war, which they were clearly waging against us in Iraq.

"Invite a war." You mean the one we've been assembling fleets and armies to wage? Yeah...no"

1. I have no idea what you're talking about. Honest.

2. So you admit that they are justified in trying to get nukes, while simultaneously being OK that thousands of their people might die for that perfectly legitimate endeavour, even WHILE admitting that it is you that's the reason why they have a perfectly legitimate reason to seek them.

You're insane.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 9:32 PM  

"Bring it on, Tommy, I'm not hard to find"

OH MAN!!!! You got internet tuff guyed so bad!!!

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 9:32 PM  

""Same thing with Kratman."

Bring it on, Tommy, I'm not hard to find."

Actually you are. I'm not a CIA agent.

Furthermore, I didn't say that I would do it, I said that you have it coming. Your internet tough guy act is unilateral.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:35 PM  

Tommy:

I never said they didn't have reasons, silly boy. I simply don't care about their reasons. There is no comity between them and me. I have no obligations toward them. Morally, they are ciphers. I would be very pleased to invade and partition them, freeing the roughly half of the populace that languishes under Farsi domination. Why? Well not because I give a shit about Shia Arabs or Azeris or Baluchis - they mean less to me than you do and you don't mean as much as a cockroach - but simply because I think it would be to the advantage of the United States.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:36 PM  

Blacksburg, VA. Ask around; I used to practice law here and am fairly well known.

Of course, it's only on the internet that I'm a tough guy.

hahahahahahahahaha. Idiot.

Anonymous YIH January 13, 2014 9:38 PM  

Gapeseed January 13, 2014 9:05 PM
As a Christian, I find my isolationist tendencies torn on the issue of Israel. I want to give Israel every benefit of the doubt, as I suspect based on voluminous scripture that Israel is in God's grand plan, and most specifically, Jerusalem. On the other hand, the relationship between the US and Israel is high maintenance and, when viewed with the eyes of man, something of a resource sink. Are we to bless Israel at all opportunity? How does this inform US domestic policy and culture, where (mostly secular) Jews advocate social policies I find appallingly anti-Christian? Apologies if this has been covered in volume when I was inattentive, but any thoughts on this issue would be very helpful in my clarifying my own.

Belive it or not, the Japanese and Koreans LOVE Christmas! Not for any religious reasons (about 1% Christian) they just like the festivities.
Unlike jews (just like moslims) who think that Christanity is something to belittle and should be eliminated.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 9:48 PM  

Dear YIH. since you may have missed this, and I wouldn't want you to miss it:

Stupid bitch, I'm a Catholic.

Now fuck off and die.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 9:52 PM  

"Stupid bitch, I'm a Catholic.

Now fuck off and die."

Ok Krat... how about we take a sip of bourbon and smoke a cigar before we tear someone's adam's apple out. Gettin' a little intense hoss.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 9:53 PM  

"Tommy:

I never said they didn't have reasons, silly boy. I simply don't care about their reasons. There is no comity between them and me. I have no obligations toward them. Morally, they are ciphers. I would be very pleased to invade and partition them, freeing the roughly half of the populace that languishes under Farsi domination. Why? Well not because I give a shit about Shia Arabs or Azeris or Baluchis - they mean less to me than you do and you don't mean as much as a cockroach - but simply because I think it would be to the advantage of the United States."

Related. http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/badass-meme.gif

I'm not sure if I should congratulate you for your edges or laugh at the notion that starting a meaningless, expensive and suicidal war (in terms of domestic AND international approval) would benefit the United States.

Btw, those guys who wills die, lose their limbs, testicles, eyes etc: they are YOUR countrymen. As are those people that would die because of the inevitable terrorist backlash.

But hey, at least your country got to play Risk in real life, right?

Anonymous zen0 January 13, 2014 9:59 PM  

@ Tommy Hass

Furthermore, Iran has literally never started a war in it's history. Never.

Iran declared war on the US in 1979.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda."

"Peace only unto those who follow the true path."

Letter to Bush from President Ahmadinejad.

Same phrase used by Mohammed (May his name be blotted out)

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered.

Shove your Jihad up your ass where it belongs, dog.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:00 PM  

I don't drink or smoke, Nate.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 13, 2014 10:06 PM  

Good. That means that two stupid ideas died this week. First global warming went tits up on ice with the climate research ship stuck in the deep freeze in Antarctica. Now American imperialism gets thrown in history's trash can. For better or worse, there will not be another Reagan to save us from "Vietnam Syndrome" - not this time. America will lack the will to try anything on the scale of Iraq ever again. Moreover, it can't afford another Reagan-style rebuilding of its military after a disastrous war. Not only that, but no one with an IQ above room temperature will enlist for any more of this, meaning that the US military will be left as a mix of single moms, fags, gang members, and the semi-retarded - a force that couldn't take and hold Bimini. America's ability to fire rockets from drones will render it a global annoyance until it finally comes to its senses and retracts all of its forces from everywhere, but it is an existential threat to precisely nobody.

Which, considering the fact that it spent the last dozen years providing cover for a dismal Apartheid state and trying to spread the joys of Cultural Marxism to traditionalist people of faith in the Middle East, suits me just fine.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:06 PM  

Oh, jeez. Oh, no. Oh, nononono. The inevitable terrorist backlash. How frightful! I quake in my shoes. How horrifying! Every soldier just shivers in fear.

Puhleeze.

It's not playing Risk, silly boy. It's eliminating an enemy. That's what soldiers are _for_.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 13, 2014 10:07 PM  

"Iran declared war on the US in 1979."

Not so's you'd notice.

Anonymous zen0 January 13, 2014 10:09 PM  

@ YIH

I don't doubt the Japs care about quality, of course they do, but you're Southern, do you honestly think they understand the culture that made Jim Beam?

The one thing the Japs are genius at is taking other cultural items and stripping them down to an essence, more often than not with qualitative improvement.

Suntory an excellent whiskey, with a unique flavor. It can only make that Jim Beam crap better.

Anonymous Anonymous January 13, 2014 10:10 PM  

"I don't drink or smoke, Nate."

Watcha gonna do...

- A. Ant

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 10:11 PM  

"I don't drink or smoke, Nate."

Well... his ass is grass then... 'cause ain't neither one of us singin' Kum Bah Ya.

Carry on.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 13, 2014 10:12 PM  

Tom Kratman said..."Seminary, not Cemetary. Hate when that happens."

You mean cemetery.


Ok children, settle down.



So Azeri area = Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic with the Tabriz circum-area or is that incorrect?

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 10:12 PM  

"I don't doubt the Japs care about quality, of course they do, but you're Southern, do you honestly think they understand the culture that made Jim Beam?"

its not necessary. They will not interfere with Jim Beam or Makers Mark.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:14 PM  

How old are you, ADA? I ask because adults of the day certainly DID notice. It was about all most people here noticed for 444 days.

As for the rest; it sounds like you have a laundry list of things you wish for, and perhaps even something you think is a crystal ball. Don't count on any of it; we simply can't know what's going to happen...especially since, "God smiles favorably upon fools, drunkards, and the United States."

Anonymous zeRo January 13, 2014 10:19 PM  

"Iran declared war on the US in 1979."

The revolution in Iran was one rooted in populism, nationalism, Islam, and anti-westernism, all rolled up into one. The Shah was a notoriously brutal dictator, put into power by the U.S. and British in the 1950's by removing an elected official, in essence to control oil. Check your facts regarding who started the "war" before mouthing off.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 10:19 PM  

"Blacksburg, VA. Ask around; I used to practice law here and am fairly well known.

Of course, it's only on the internet that I'm a tough guy.

hahahahahahahahaha. Idiot."

So you fought in the Gulf War. Nice.

My "Your internet tough guy act is unilateral" statement was supposed to convey that between us, only you acted tough, which is true. The fact that you served as a soldier is irrelevant.

However, here's what a guy (whom you wouldn't even be fit to serve as a shoelicker) thought:

"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder." - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

You're an absolute disgrace. Forget Ataturk, your own founders would spit on you for treating their vision of America like dirt.

But hey, at least your wife is hot.

Anonymous Anonymous January 13, 2014 10:19 PM  

"God smiles favorably upon fools, drunkards, and the United States."

We're fucked.

- A. Ant

Anonymous Hunsdon January 13, 2014 10:21 PM  

Glenn Filthie said: President Imadinnerjacket in Iran said the second his nukes are operational Israel is gone. Pakistan has said the same thing of India.

Hunsdon said: Rule two. Source it, or withdraw it.

Tom Kratman said: One of the reasons we've been failing in war - the logic of which does not operate the way normal civilian logic does; see Luttwak's Strategy for an explanation - is because we can't do, or if we do we can't sustain, anything that doesn't make make sense to the most militarily ignorant mommy in the country. (snip) And I don't know about anyone else's, but my crystal ball's been recalled to the factory.

Hunsdon said: Tom, that's why my crystal ball was working fine. What was it Macarthur said, the line about it being fatal to enter any war without the will to win it? We ain't got the will to win it (that's a NCA-level problem, at the ruck-and-rifle level, hellz yeah).

Anonymous zen0 January 13, 2014 10:23 PM  

@ activist "Iran declared war on the US in 1979."

Not so's you'd notice.


Oh, they noticed alright. Just don't want to get sucked in. But sucked in they will be. In the Mid-east, negotiation is not a process, it is a way of life, and has been for millenia. Agreements have no lasting force or meaning. Its just a dance.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 10:25 PM  

""Peace only unto those who follow the true path.""

I thought people were kidding when they interpreted that line in Ahmadinajad's letter as "a declaration of war".

How the fuck do you breathe and type at the same time?

As for the Jihad reference - look at who is itching to sacrifice his men in pointless wars. Sure isn't me.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:30 PM  

You can go here, IS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/06/iran_maps/html/

Remember, it's a multi state solution onvolving both Iraq and Iran. Up in NW Iran you can see a Kurdish section that would go to Kurdestan. Just east of there is the Azeri area. There are a couple of relatively minor groups who probablym ought be put in with the Azeris, since they appear too small for even a measure of self defense. I'd be inclined to lump the eastern Lurs in with the Kurds. Ethnically cleanse the Gulf Coast between the three Arab areas and link those, plus the cleansed area up with the Shia area of Iraq. Baluschistan is pretty obvious. Probably award the northern tier, east of the Caspian, to Turkmenistan.

A check of the oil and gas maps would show little left to Iran, most of it going with the Arabs and the Lurs. ISTR there's some gas up around the Caspian, in Azeristan, but the maps don't seem to show much. Perhaps they're exhausted fields.

Anonymous jack January 13, 2014 10:32 PM  

Bring it on, Tommy, I'm not hard to find.
@Tommy Hass: Personally, I would back down some; maybe about 1000% If you doubt, read Colonel Kratman's bio.

It's OK Tom, Since you don't drink I will sip with Nate in your honor. Good bourbon is one of God's gifts to the elect.
And, Nate. Its always amazed me that such a gung ho football state as Alabama has no pro football team. One would probably do quite well here [in between Iron Bowls, that is].

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 10:33 PM  

"Remember, it's a multi state solution onvolving both Iraq and Iran. Up in NW Iran you can see a Kurdish section that would go to Kurdestan. "

This is part of the problem that the neocons never fully addressed. Iraq and Iran are not one nation... they are each made up of distinct populations that really don't much care for each other. Trying to keep them intact and peaceful is a losing battle in the long run.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:35 PM  

So what the fuck are you, Tommy? More importantly, what the fuck are you to me? Less than a cockroach, as mentioned. You sling around "mutilate him and him." You toss out "disgrace" frequently. But what the fuck are you? What are your qualifications, pussy lips? What the fuck have you ever done? What the fuck do you matter?

You aren't worth what my dogs leave in the yard. All words, no action. No guts. No nothing.

Anonymous zen0 January 13, 2014 10:35 PM  

Glenn Filthie said: President Imadinnerjacket in Iran said the second his nukes are operational Israel is gone. Pakistan has said the same thing of India.

Hunsdon said: Rule two. Source it, or withdraw it.


Let us split the hairs:



In the same vein, a Huffington Post columnist admonished Bachmann to "stop lying," claiming, "Bachmann's allegation is completely devoid of truth. As CNN's Truth Squad points out, Iranian leaders never threatened to nuke Israel or the United States, and they couldn't have because they deny pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place."

But the facts prove Bachmann right. First, the mullahs' mouthpiece Ahmadinejad is unambiguous that the regime's goal is the destruction of both Israel and the U.S., having vowed at the "World Without Zionism" conference that "his eminency Imam Khomeini ... said that the occupation regime of Qods [Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt." Second, his promise to annihilate these two nations, and to do it "soon," is coupled with a nuclear threat: "Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology. Those who want to talk with our people should know what people they are talking to[.] ... If they have not realized this by now, they soon will, but then it will be too late[.]"

Ahmadinejad promises a second Holocaust by means that only a nuclear weapon could produce -- "[t]he Zionist regime...will be eliminated by one storm" -- followed by attacks on the West: "The rage of the Muslim peoples will not be restricted to the boundaries of our region[.] The waves of the explosion ... will reach the corrupt forces [i.e., the Western countries] which support this fake regime [Israel]."


Really, now, it is not a secret that Muslims want Israel gone. By whatever means at hand. They go on about it every Friday.

"First the Saturday people{Jews} (will be eliminated) , then the Sunday people {Christians}.

Lets not get too cute about It.


Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 10:35 PM  

"And, Nate. Its always amazed me that such a gung ho football state as Alabama has no pro football team. One would probably do quite well here [in between Iron Bowls, that is]."

Makes no sense to me at all. I mean the luxury suites would sell out in seconds. Austal... Airbus.. Hyundai... on and on and on... there is so much industry in Bama now. Its a no brainer.

Alabama Raiders?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:36 PM  

How many times do I have to say it, Nate; _I_ am not a neocon.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 10:38 PM  

"You aren't worth what my dogs leave in the yard. All words, no action. No guts. No nothing."

See?

This is when you sit on your porch... take a sip of bourbon... and think... "ah hell it don't matter."

See Tom... men reach that point when they aren't interested in getting hammered. They just want to... change their attitude a little. Responsible God Fearing men earn such a privilege.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 10:38 PM  

"How many times do I have to say it, Nate; _I_ am not a neocon."

Whoa chief. Friendly fire. I was agreeing with you. Pointing out that you were right and the neocons didn't see what you saw.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 10:41 PM  

"Oh, jeez. Oh, no. Oh, nononono. The inevitable terrorist backlash. How frightful! I quake in my shoes. How horrifying! Every soldier just shivers in fear."

I was talking about civilian targets you fucktard. Remember 9/11? Or the fellows in the Boston Marathon having to pick up their limbs?

"It's not playing Risk, silly boy. It's eliminating an enemy. That's what soldiers are _for_."

Soldiers are there to protect their country and their constitution, not to rearrange deckchairs several continents away. All of this posturing would be fun, if it didn't lead to the death of your OWN citizens. You know, the people whom you have a "social contract" with.

What's better: you seem to be the only person on here who doesn't know that the only way that war would benefit America is if you reduce America to Lockheed Martin and co. (oh and a bunch of kikes) The vast majority would not benefit from it, to put it mildly. (including whoever is stupid enough to preside over such a dumb decision)

Besides, how is Iran your enemy? Serious question. You might be their enemy, but they aren't yours. And the former is only because of your choice.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:43 PM  

By the way, anyone know what and where Tommy Hass is? Pulling his pud in his parent's basement? Sure, that's a given. But other than that, is there anything of worth there?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:47 PM  

You know how you avoid the retaliation on your civilians, Pussy Lips? You kill at 10000 to one. They set off a bomb in NY? We eliminate Tehran. No problem. Fucktard.



Anonymous Hunsdon January 13, 2014 10:48 PM  

zen0 said: Really, now, it is not a secret that Muslims want Israel gone. By whatever means at hand. They go on about it every Friday.

"First the Saturday people{Jews} (will be eliminated) , then the Sunday people {Christians}.

Lets not get too cute about It.

Hunsdon said: I want Obama gone, too, but it's not like I'm about to take up arms against him. Gotta link to go with that quote, so I can fisk it? And saying "Muslims want Israel gone" overlooks the congruence of interest between some Muslims and Israel: Saudi Arabia and Israel both are getting all slobbery about punking Iran and Syria.

Besides, I'd argue that what Glenn Filthie said isn't supported by what you quoted, which doesn't even seem to rise to "who will rid me of this troublesome pharisee?"

Ain't my people, ain't my fight: I'm just tired of Marines (and, well, I guess, soldiers too) being thrown into the meat grinder under ROEs that mean we won't/can't win, and no shit, I think Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq.

Anonymous Hunsdon January 13, 2014 10:51 PM  

Tom Kratman said: You know how you avoid the retaliation on your civilians, Pussy Lips? You kill at 10000 to one. They set off a bomb in NY? We eliminate Tehran. No problem. Fucktard.

Hunsdon said: Umm, Groznii? Of course, that would be launching nukes (or arclights!) against Russia. That would be a bad thing.

Anonymous automatthew January 13, 2014 10:56 PM  

"You know how you avoid the retaliation on your civilians, Pussy Lips? You kill at 10000 to one"

We've tried this, but y'all keep sneaking back into our countries.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:56 PM  

Too loose a connection between the Tsarnaevs and Grozni or Chenchnya, I'm afraid, Hundson. That would be somewhat like nuking Glasgow for the Murrah building.

Though, all things considered, I wouldn't mind having the Tsarnaev's entire family tree crucified.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic January 13, 2014 10:59 PM  

Glenn Filthie: "Well - sitting back and letting these moslem psychopaths mass murder and build nukes isn't the answer either."

You are a useful idiot sir. We let the psychopathic Muslims in the US, and we obligingly relieve the Latin American ruling class of their excess Aztecs. And we keep all our best warriors overseas making the world safe for Israel and for the House of Saud and the House of Thani.

We chase chimeras overseas and don't bother to safeguard our own cultural and territorial integrity.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:03 PM  

"So what the fuck are you, Tommy? More importantly, what the fuck are you to me? Less than a cockroach, as mentioned. You sling around "mutilate him and him." You toss out "disgrace" frequently. But what the fuck are you? What are your qualifications, pussy lips? What the fuck have you ever done? What the fuck do you matter?"

U mad pops?

I acknowledge your career in the military. Not everone can fight a war and come out whole. I think it's just a shame that you did, that's all.

See for a guy, who considers people from other countries "moral ciphers", you seem to get really riled up that I wouldn't mind to see you bleed for your obnoxious, callous attitude.

I stand by my points: the founding fathers, who created the country you love so much, would be disgusted by how you are shitting all over their ideal of non-interventionism, essentially to appease a bunch of Israelis who publically, on film, claimed that they can play you like a fiddle. That war would not only be an unnecessary expense, but it would also cost THOUSANDS of your men their lives. (not even talking about those who get shot and scream for hours in a military hospital because you thought partitioning Iran would be cool) Considering how many people you lost since in Iraq, how many more would you lose against Iran, which is classes above what you faced in 2003.

Add to that that everybody would hate your country even more than they already do (everybody here includes your own people btw) and the fact that your immigration policies are loose as shit, this would be a guarantee that limbs would be flying somewhere.

You realize why I called you a disgrace now?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:07 PM  

Mad? At a cipher? Puhleeze, pussy lips, this is recreation.

What does it matter what you say, or claim, or call for. You stand by nothing. You stand for nothing. You're nothing. And Lodge Burner, q.v, wouldn't have a problem with anything I've said. If you knew the actual history, rather than your fantasies, foreigner, you would probably know that.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 13, 2014 11:08 PM  

"Iraq and Iran are not one nation... they are each made up of distinct populations that really don't much care for each other. Trying to keep them intact and peaceful is a losing battle in the long run."

Wait, I thought you were talking about the United States.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:09 PM  

"You know how you avoid the retaliation on your civilians, Pussy Lips? You kill at 10000 to one. They set off a bomb in NY? We eliminate Tehran. No problem. Fucktard. "

I'm a little shocked to have to point this out... but you're not going far enough here Krat. Nate's Plan:

Step 1: Release the names of 25 cites including all three 3 major holy cities of Islam, and all the capitals of the big dogs in the Middle East and any other enemy capitals that you want to think of... and annouce that if any nuke goes off within the borders of the US... all of those cities will be nuked. Period. No warning. No appeal. Total glass.

Step 2: Relax.

Wouldn't you agree Krat that part of the problem is the money men funding these dickwads don't really have any skin in the game? I mean sure... I can send this psycho over to blow shit up and stir up trouble... maybe the US kills some folks in Iraq or Iran but they won't bother me in Saudi.

Well fuck them. Make them put some skin in the game... then lets see how lose they are with their money. Lets see if they still unleash the dogs when they may have to pay for the damages.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:11 PM  

"Wait, I thought you were talking about the United States."

It applies to us too. And before you get all fired up about darkies and mexicans... you should remember that it applied to us long before they ever showed up.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:17 PM  

"By the way, anyone know what and where Tommy Hass is? Pulling his pud in his parent's basement? Sure, that's a given. But other than that, is there anything of worth there?"

No.

"You know how you avoid the retaliation on your civilians, Pussy Lips? You kill at 10000 to one. They set off a bomb in NY? We eliminate Tehran. No problem. Fucktard."

Yes, because that has a precedent in human history and is not one of your wet dreams. Lol.

Whom did you nuke as a response to Boston? Or even 9/11? Weren't those guys Saudis?

"Though, all things considered, I wouldn't mind having the Tsarnaev's entire family tree crucified."

Glen, sure that you wanna call the Persians uncivilized?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:18 PM  

Has to be credible, though, Nate, and I'm not sure, given our recent history, that they'd believe us. Now what they might believe is the scenario in Caliphate, weak, limp wristed pol, a pussy, like Tommy Hass, only actually female, fails to nuke, so we have a political sea change and elect someone who does nuke...and nuke...and nuke.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:21 PM  

Ah, I didn't think there'd be anything of worth there. Nice of you to admit it.

You are, I gather, as uninformed of the history of reprisal and retaliation in human affairs as you are about Lodge Burner. I am unsurprised.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:22 PM  

"Release the names of 25 cites including all three 3 major holy cities of Islam"

3?

FWIW, Part of the apocalypse in Islam is that the Qaaba gets destroyed. So it would actually be expected lol.

As for Tom: You can say whatever you want. Anything. But don't even think about pretending that you weren't chimping out just now.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:23 PM  

"Has to be credible, though, Nate, and I'm not sure, given our recent history, that they'd believe us."

Well... it would depend on who said it... Didn't we do something similar in the Cold War?

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:24 PM  

"3?"

Yes.

Three. Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:24 PM  

Pussy lips, I enjoy fighting. It's fun. It's recreation. It is, in fact, so enjoyable that I sometimes provoke fights because it cheers me up enough to help me write.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:26 PM  

Those work for all Moslems, Nate, but there are some denoms - Shia, notably - with more "Holy Cities." Never mind, though; Pussy Lips seems to know as little of Islam as of American history.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:27 PM  

"Those work for all Moslems, Nate, but there are some denoms - Shia, notably - with more "Holy Cities." "

I mean we don't have to limit it to just 25. You suppose 50 would cover it?

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:30 PM  

"You are, I gather, as uninformed of the history of reprisal and retaliation in human affairs as you are about Lodge Burner. I am unsurprised."

You mean Washington? Wasn't that a war of liberation as opposed to a war on the other side of the world?

And I'm pretty sure nobody ever used nukes as a retaliation for a terrorist attack by someone who is likely not even from the country you're nuking.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:31 PM  

"And I'm pretty sure nobody ever used nukes as a retaliation for a terrorist attack by someone who is likely not even from the country you're nuking."

We never had to.

After we made it clear that we would seriously wreck shit if anything went Boom stateside... folks happily settled down.

The credible threat of wrecking shit is profoundly beneficial.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 13, 2014 11:32 PM  

So every breathing soul in Saudi Arabia for 9/11. Or the holocaust for 600 aryans.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:35 PM  

"So every breathing soul in Saudi Arabia for 9/11. Or the holocaust for 600 aryans."

9/11 was a nuke?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:36 PM  

Go back. Pussy lips, and see why you're comment, presuming it's directed at me, makes no sense whatsoever. Lodge Burner, aka Town Burner, got the name burning Indian towns, circa 1753.

I think if you weren't such a quasi literate moron, you might note that I expressly showed some limits, some requirement for a connection. Sadly, of course, you are that moron.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:37 PM  

"Three. Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem."

Ah of course.

But I didn't even imagine for a second that you guys would nuke Jerusalem because...you know why.

"Pussy lips, I enjoy fighting. It's fun. It's recreation. It is, in fact, so enjoyable that I sometimes provoke fights because it cheers me up enough to help me write."

I don't deny that you enjoy it. But enjoying something doesn't preclude that you were chimping out. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, stop repeating the same insult, you come off like Phoenician.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:39 PM  

You don't deserve originality.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:40 PM  

"But I didn't even imagine for a second that you guys would nuke Jerusalem because...you know why."

Because you're an idiot?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:44 PM  

The objective, Goatsies, is to not be hit. Whatever it costs those who would hit you is irrelevant, provided you and your people are not hit. It is on them to police themselves, to control their own young men and their own money, to ensure we are not hit.

Hmmm..let's go back to the Achille Lauro. Four Palis kill Leon Klinghofer, an American citizen. We tell the Israelis therafter, "Get out of our way," and we grab 10k fairly prominent Palestinians and execute them.

I would suggest to you that, after that, there probably is no 911 because, if the House of Saud is anything, it is devoted to self preservation.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:45 PM  

""And I'm pretty sure nobody ever used nukes as a retaliation for a terrorist attack by someone who is likely not even from the country you're nuking."

We never had to.

After we made it clear that we would seriously wreck shit if anything went Boom stateside... folks happily settled down.

The credible threat of wrecking shit is profoundly beneficial."

I wasn't talking about nukes. I was talking about your bogstandard terror attacks.

"Go back. Pussy lips, and see why you're comment, presuming it's directed at me, makes no sense whatsoever. Lodge Burner, aka Town Burner, got the name burning Indian towns, circa 1753.

I think if you weren't such a quasi literate moron, you might note that I expressly showed some limits, some requirement for a connection. Sadly, of course, you are that moron."

Elaborate.

Yes Washington burned Indian towns...because he had to. Those wars happened in America. You think those guys would approve fighting an enemy that you don't have to, at the other side of the planet?

I didn't say he would disapprove of scorched earth policies. He would disapprove of wasting American life timezones away from either coast.

Blogger Baloo January 13, 2014 11:46 PM  

Thank you for pointing all this out. My son was there, in the Marines. I've reblogged it here:
Fallujah — What were we fighting about again?

Blogger mmaier2112 January 13, 2014 11:49 PM  

Kratman: you're rather new here so I don't suspect you would get this reference, but you're making Bane look like a grounded, rational, VERY NICE man by way of comparison.

And, sadly, you're utterly lacking his charm.

Anonymous Stilicho January 13, 2014 11:49 PM  

Those Marines were cowardly for not fragging their COs.

FOAD you ignorant pustule upon the flabby, carbuncled ass of Code Pink.

Lion of Fallujah

He was named the "Lion of Fallujah" as a result of his heroic actions leading Echo Company 2/1 during Operation Vigilant Resolve in 2004. As a rifle company commander, he led 168 Marines and sailors in the first conventional ground assault into Fallujah, Iraq. He was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat Distinguishing Device and two Purple Hearts due to wounds incurred in action.

He turned over command of Echo Company in November 2004 and served as an assistant operations officer at the Marine Corps’ First Special Operations Training Group (1st SOTG) where he ran the urban patrolling/ Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and tank-infantry training packages for the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit in preparation for an upcoming deployment to Iraq. Zembiec transferred from 1st SOTG to the Regional Support Element, Headquarters, Marine Corps on June 10, 2005. His promotion to Major was effective on July 1, 2005.
Death
Zembiec's pallbearers carry his coffin following a memorial service.

He was serving his fourth combat tour in Iraq when he was killed by small arms fire while leading a raid in Baghdad on May 11, 2007. Zembiec was leading a unit of Iraqi forces he had helped train.[8] Reports from fellow servicemen that were present in the dark Baghdad alley where he was killed indicate that he'd warned his troops to get down before doing so himself and was hit by enemy fire. The initial radio report indicated "five wounded and one martyred[9]" with Major Zembiec having been killed and his men saved by his warning.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:51 PM  

"Kratman: you're rather new here so I don't suspect you would get this reference, but you're making Bane look like a grounded, rational, VERY NICE man by way of comparison."

Zip it hippy.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:52 PM  

""But I didn't even imagine for a second that you guys would nuke Jerusalem because...you know why."

Because you're an idiot?"

The Jews own your country, bro, whether you like it or not.

"The objective, Goatsies, is to not be hit. Whatever it costs those who would hit you is irrelevant, provided you and your people are not hit. It is on them to police themselves, to control their own young men and their own money, to ensure we are not hit.

Hmmm..let's go back to the Achille Lauro. Four Palis kill Leon Klinghofer, an American citizen. We tell the Israelis therafter, "Get out of our way," and we grab 10k fairly prominent Palestinians and execute them.

I would suggest to you that, after that, there probably is no 911 because, if the House of Saud is anything, it is devoted to self preservation."

I think you should stick to writing fiction.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:54 PM  

Bane was actually something of a fan or my writing, Maier, so yes, I get the reference. And I am invariably polite to everyone who is polite to me. However, as soon as some slimy, useless, limp-wristed, panty-waisted shitweasel like Hass tosses an insult my way, I feel no need for restraint. I also don't feel the need for a lot of restraint toward people who butt in without bothering to gather all the avialable facts.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:54 PM  

"I wasn't talking about nukes. I was talking about your bogstandard terror attacks."

I really don't much concern myself over them. Generally speaking... people like Bin Laden are rabid dogs. You fund them.. you don't know if they are going to go psycho and nuke someone or just fly some airplanes into some buildings.

There is a chance... that they could go off the reservation and do something crazy. And if they do... you and your kin all die.

Suddenly the purse strings for all terrorist activities get a lot tighter.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 13, 2014 11:57 PM  

"9/11 was a nuke?"
Before the conversation bifurcated, the chain went "inevitable terrorist backlash", then "civilian targets" e.g. 9/11, Boston Marathon, then "retaliation on your civilians" e.g. bomb in NY...

But anyway, Mr. Kratman writes military fiction. Have you a plausible scenario wherein the United States lobs a nukes at a major population centre, just to teach them a lesson... It sounds like something that worked in the playground, just scaled up... but scaled up way beyond sense or possibility.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:58 PM  

Yes, and if you could think that might be good advice. Since demonstably you cannot, eat shit and die, pussy lips.

Blogger Nate January 13, 2014 11:58 PM  

"Have you a plausible scenario wherein the United States lobs a nukes at a major population centre, just to teach them a lesson... It sounds like something that worked in the playground, just scaled up... but scaled up way beyond sense or possibility."

During the Cold War there was an actual list of 25 major cities the US would nuke if it was hit.

This is not new or original. We did the same thing 40 years ago.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 13, 2014 11:58 PM  

"However, as soon as some slimy, useless, limp-wristed, panty-waisted shitweasel like Hass tosses an insult my way, I feel no need for restraint. I also don't feel the need for a lot of restraint toward people who butt in without bothering to gather all the avialable facts."

Our differences aren't because I am uneducated or ignorant, they are because you are a psychopath who claims to advocate a war because it would benefit his country when it would be a complete and utter waste of life, money and diplomatic capital.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2014 12:00 AM  

"Before the conversation bifurcated, the chain went "inevitable terrorist backlash", then "civilian targets" e.g. 9/11, Boston Marathon, then "retaliation on your civilians" e.g. bomb in NY..."

Well I cannot be moved to comment on that aspect... as a bunch of dead new yorkers really doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:00 AM  

That's a no-brainer, Goatsies. We get nuked, we're going to nuke. It will happen either more or less immediately, in a small way, a city or three for a city, or, should the then current administration turn pansy, then we'll soon have a new administration which will probably go all out genocidal.

Go download Caliphate; it's free.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:02 AM  

You are, in this, uneducated and ignorant. You are not qualified, by any evidence I have seen, or can even reasonably interpolate, to make any kind of military, strategic, geopolitical, or - since you appear to be a Nazi - moral judgment.

Blogger IM2L844 January 14, 2014 12:02 AM  

I mean we don't have to limit it to just 25. You suppose 50 would cover it?

Enough of the measured response crap. Either stay the hell out or go full blown Amalekite solution on their asses and be done with it.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2014 12:03 AM  

Also... I would like to object to the use of "Pussy Lips" as an insult. I'm quite fond of pussy lips myself and would rather not see them insulted through association.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:04 AM  

By the way, Pussy lips, I was not actually advocating a war. In order to advocate, I would have to believe we'd have the fortitude to carry it through. This, I do not believe. I was pointing out the advantages of a particular course of action, if we had that fortitude. TRY TO FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO THE FUCKING DETAILS, WOULD YOU, YOU FUCKING MORON?

Blogger Nate January 14, 2014 12:05 AM  

"It will happen either more or less immediately, in a small way, a city or three for a city, or, should the then current administration turn pansy, then we'll soon have a new administration which will probably go all out genocidal. "

For the record I am pro-credible-threat-of-unspeakable-violence. Disproportionate response has always been a friend of mine. Geo-politically speaking it seems it would be even more useful.

You get no points for playing nice.

Anonymous kh123 January 14, 2014 12:09 AM  

"That would be somewhat like nuking Glasgow for the Murrah building."

No need to. Airdrop several hundred sets of Ginsu knives and the whole thing sorts itself out.

We have MAD; they have NED.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 14, 2014 12:09 AM  

Even if you had that fortitude, it would be a stupid idea. You can't fight a war without 1. paying, 2. dying, 3. pissing people off. All just so to make sure that a bunch of Persians live in poverty. Neat.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 14, 2014 12:10 AM  

"Whatever it costs those who would hit you is irrelevant, provided you and your people are not hit."

What about what it costs those who would not hit you, or are incapable of hitting you, or just don't risk their livelihoods to stop you being hit etc etc etc? Big 'ole unaccounted for gap there.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2014 12:11 AM  

"you don't know if they are going to go psycho and nuke someone or just fly some airplanes into some buildings."

Bin Laden didn't go psycho. He got precisely what he wanted: the US is now broke and demoralized, and spent years bogged down pointlessly in other countries, blowing up rocks and infuriating the locals. Our international reputation was so tattered that we elected an America-hating foreign socialist as our president just to show the world we were nice guys. To make the Muslim world like us after we senselessly blew up their shit, we invite millions of our deadly enemies to come live in our country to transform it into an Islamic stronghold.

I'd say that dollars to donuts, bin Ladin's plan was the most economical act of war ever conceived: he substantially shredded a superpower for mere pennies.

You know that old story (might be Kipling) about the tiger pointlessly running in rings around a tree until he melts into butter?

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 14, 2014 12:12 AM  

"Go download Caliphate; it's free." - well thanks for the heads up.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:13 AM  

Hmmm...in thinking about this: "Honestly, you literally, seriously deserve to be mutilated. Same thing with Kratman," it occurs to me that saying, "Honestly, you literally, seriously deserve to be castrated" would not be on point, since this shitweasel is obviously a eunuch, already.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:19 AM  

Fool, it's not merely to make them live in poverty; it's to remove the threat they've been to us, and the irritation, since 1979, while presenting to the rest of the world that we are not to be fucked with. And, since there's no nation building of the required, and we can keep the revenues from much of the oil and gas, not a cost of cost, either. As for people hurt and killed, as mentioned, I don't give a shit about theirs, and ours are volunteers.

Operationally, and this is where your lack of education and ignorance shines most brightly, there wouldn't be all that many dead anyway. Not a lot more than we took invading Iraq, because a) they suck, too, (not as much as Iraqis, though) and b) we wouldn't stick around to build up anything, rather, we'd trash and sack the place then leave, while c) the places we would stay would likely be ever so eager to keep us happy since they'd need us to be free of the Iranians.

Anonymous Lana January 14, 2014 12:21 AM  

So then, in a Nate or Kratman series of events, what would the proper response to 9/11 have been? Had Bush picked up his megaphone on the smoldering remains of the Twin Towers and issued a statement that both of you believe would have worked....what would that statement have been? It seems to me that in that moment of time, he could have said absolutely anything and the entire country would have backed him.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:26 AM  

Scoob:

I think ObL was a little shocked (read: I have good reason to believe he was shocked silly) at how easily we kicked his allies out of most of Afghanistan. I don't think he expected that, given how much trouble they'd given the Russians. I would be unsurprised to discover that, even if he later expected an eventual turnaround, he was shocked at how long it took, probably because he hadn't considered that we might knock off some place closer to home, which would attract the money and volunteers that would otherwise have gone to Afghanistan. (Not that I think anyone in the five sided puzzle palace thought of that.) And I don't think it was war as much as theater, expressly theater directed at his fellow Moslems.

Now if you want an economical act of war, the Madrid bombings. Think about it; for a pittance in cash, and under 200 lives, they knocked one major ally, and maybe a dozen smaller but willing allies, completely out of the war. It may have been the most moral attack on civilians in history. Even in terms of our law of war, it met at least the necessity and proportionality tests.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2014 12:30 AM  

"So then, in a Nate or Kratman series of events, what would the proper response to 9/11 have been?"

Elimination of travel visas to most people from Muslim countries, securing the southern border, and systematically deporting illegal immigrants would have been the logical course of action.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:33 AM  

I don't think so, Lana. There were serious limits to what we were willing to do, even as outraged and [temporarily] united as we were. We were going to ask for allied help, even if we didn't need it and even if most of them were worthless drains on already overstrained logistics. We were not going to turn Afghanistan into an Imperial province. We were not going to set up a sepoy army there. We were not going to go Einsatzgruppe there. And there wasn't a lot we could do, quickly, that would have let us support a large enough army there.

In short, you have to postulate a different America to posulate something different George II could have done. And I write sci fi and mil fic, not fantasy.

Anonymous Lana January 14, 2014 12:53 AM  

Tom, I completely and totally agreed with you when you said, " I was not actually advocating a war. In order to advocate, I would have to believe we'd have the fortitude to carry it through. This, I do not believe." However, I do think the American people, for at least the first 8 weeks, quite possibly would have signed on to nuke Afghanistan and Mecca. It seems like the dragging out of the entire business is what the public can't take. Not that Bush or the military brass would have been willing to do it, of course, but I think there is a case to be made that they could have gotten away with it. So that was the spirit of my question...what would you have suggested given carte blache?

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 12:56 AM  

A formal declaration of war.

Anonymous Lana January 14, 2014 12:56 AM  

Noah B...We probably would have nuked Mecca before we did anything so sensible as that, given the current state of affairs. That said, there had to be a response. Even George Washington would have responded.

Blogger Outlaw X January 14, 2014 1:01 AM  

Man I could say a lot about this but an held in confidence of friend of mine. He told me truth and knows the truth and is pissed.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 1:03 AM  

Oh, on whom? Everyone who had someone in, or whom we could demonstrate had donated money, or given any other kind of material aid, to the hijackers. That would express include Saudi Arabia. They would, of course, surrender immediately. We could then take all government property. That means their oil was ours, which would have helped fund the war. In Saudi I'd have had the entire extended Bin Laden clan rounded up and crucified, along with the familes, the very extended families, of all the other hijackers, from the KSA. From there it's on to Egypt, which might not surrender, by the way. At least not until we smashed the dam as Aswan, which would kill a metric shitload of the country.

But that doesn't work either, after Saudi, because we'll have run out of time by the clock you gave us.

OpenID luagha January 14, 2014 1:03 AM  

"Have you a plausible scenario wherein the United States lobs a nukes at a major population centre, just to teach them a lesson... "

After 9/11, Pervez Musharraf said he was specifically threatened that he should expect Pakistan to be bombed back to the stone age if he didn't 'get his mind right' and get on the US's side:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?_r=0

He said that the threat came from Richard Armitage. Armitage says it wasn't spoken in those terms.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14943975/#.UtTSabT21aQ

Could have been a bit of translation emphasis. Except Musharraf's English is pretty decent.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 14, 2014 1:05 AM  

Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 5:55 PM
there's a lot to be said for invading Iran, and then partitioning it.



it certainly did appear as though that was where Shrub was headed at one time.

unfortunately, they fubared the 'peace' AND allowed the domestic media to paint Al Qaeda originated murders as deaths to Shrubs account ...
and they lost any will on the part of the American people to continue.

i suspect that it wouldn't have made much difference though. i expect that Russia+China both met / would have met with Shrub behind closed doors and told him that Iran was a bridge too far.

Russia+China have no more interest in the US being in complete control of the ME oil fields than we have in the Iranians controlling it.



JartStar January 13, 2014 8:27 PM
Of course the question remains: does Iran have the right to defend itself with such tactics?



does the US?



Godfrey January 13, 2014 8:31 PM
In the long run most if not all war is for nothing.



*facepalm* that's sheep thinking.

the wolves know that predatory 'war' is the BEST way to expropriate wealth from a rival population.

that the US normally expends the wealth and lives to wage an offensive war WITHOUT these goals is a fault our education system.



Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:30 PM
Remember, it's a multi state solution onvolving both Iraq and Iran.



the problem being, Tom, that any partitioning that large is NOT going to stop at the edge of Iran/Iraq. you create a greater Kurdistan and Shiastan and you're immediately going to draw Turkey into the mess.

so now you're embroiled in a war stretching from the Bosporos to Pakistan and pissing the royal fuck out of Russia, China and Turkey.

you want to go to war, fine. that's hunky-dory.

now, look around. just looking around Blacksburg is plenty.

WHERE is the popular will for this, Tom?

without the American people behind it, AND BEHIND THE NECESSARY TACTICS any such effort is doomed to useless failure.

we haven't even addressed the problem of the US being broke and needing China to finance all this crap.

nor does it address the issue that by concentrating the Shia into one superstate you make it nearly inevitable that they will immediately begin trying to reinstate the Caliphate. unless your goal is to nuke that ...



Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 10:35 PM
So what the fuck are you, Tommy?



last week he claimed to be posting from Turkey.

so, don't expect him to be very friendly to Christian or Western concerns.



Tom Kratman January 13, 2014 11:44 PM
if the House of Saud is anything, it is devoted to self preservation.



how bout we constrain ourselves to threats that don't require a fuckton of coke to imagine the powers that be in the US actually carrying them out?

one thing Hass has said is very valid, 9-11 was a Saudi job from top to bottom. you can make cases for attacking A-gan and Iraq. you CAN'T make a case for attacking them and NOT attacking Saudi.

there already SHOULD be a hydrogen bomb sitting on top of the Kaaba.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 1:13 AM  

I think if you look, Bob, you'll see that I refuted the notion of the popular will being up for this.

The Shia are also split, though, into Farsi SHia, Arab Shia, Azeris...I don't think that anywhere I suggested setting up for all the Shia, even though the arab portion might be called Shiastan. I actually wouldn't have been averse, should it have proven necessary, to letting the Chinese have Shiastan and the Russians effective control over Azeristan.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 1:15 AM  

"last week he claimed to be posting from Turkey."

That would tie in to the Ataturk reference. It might also tend to explain his apparent anti-semitism, and general outlook.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 1:16 AM  

Note, further, the mention of Saudi, declaration of war upon, above, Bob.

Anonymous jack January 14, 2014 1:17 AM  

@Mmaier: And, sadly, you're utterly lacking his charm.

Now, I was here during the reign of Bane. He was many things; I'm not sure charming would be on the list. Sure, he would and I guess did like Tom Kratman's writings. I like them. I liked Bane. He was one of the 10 or so people who comment that I will always stop the scrolling for to read what he had to say. It was almost always worth it.
Sigh, and sniff, sniff, we do still miss Bane here. I remember his need for a computer once; I think I even contributed to that.
But, now we have KRATMAN!
There is a God.

Anonymous jack January 14, 2014 1:28 AM  

@Nate: The Alabama Raiders.
Kind of like the sound of that. I would even go for the Alabama Lions, though the Raiders does harken back to the tradition of Mosleys Raiders and Forrest's regiment.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 14, 2014 1:31 AM  

Tom Kratman January 14, 2014 1:13 AM
I think if you look, Bob, you'll see that I refuted the notion of the popular will being up for this.



if you stipulate that
1 - there is no popular will for this
2 - the US cannot fund this, if we tried the Chinese would be too happy to bring us to heel
3 - it's practically inconceivable that the US will ever hold Saudi accountable for anything
4 - to engage in the ME to the extent you suggest would likely result in Russia/China also engaging and possibly working all the way up to nuke exchange

then we can continue spitballing ideas. just as long as everybody is aware that it's all pipe dreams.

we didn't have the balls to tell China to get out of the Vietnam mess ( thereby guaranteeing the VC an untouchable source of supply ) in 1965 when China couldn't even launch an IBM and had no strategic capability.

i don't see that we have any more will today and the force scales are infinitely more in China's favor in 2010 than they were in 1965.

Anonymous ENthePeasant January 14, 2014 1:46 AM  

"Yes, partition would have been the wise thing to do in Iraq too, had it been possible. It wasn't possible because of Iran. Why? Because no one of the three major parts of Iraq - we can call them Kurdestan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan - could stand up to a unified Iran."

And how do you know what forces those suggested actions will unleash? We're a broke country, there is no will for this action, and how you could possibly know the results of the actions is pure delusion. You've laid out a mathematical formula and you're applying it to a living, breathing, and not to mention highly dynamic, area of the world. We'd never leave the area in question, not in 100+ years... but we won't last that long, so the point is silly. This is akin to putting one's dick in a meat grinder and expecting a positive result on the other side. The result will be our dick turning into sausage and all else is unknown.

Blogger redlegben January 14, 2014 2:24 AM  

The key to the current issues of war is history. The Lawrence of Arabia idea of drawing lines to keep muslims fighting each other is one way. It is sound. Arguing over which bastard son is right about Islam is great for these morons to leave us alone. The second method is threat of extinction. Ala Japan and WWII. Eliminate the right to live if they continue their ways.

I know of no other historical examples of solving such issues. That includes ignoring them. Action is actually necessary in one form or another. That is if you want to maintain your country's right to self determination.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2014 2:37 AM  

"That is if you want to maintain your country's right to self determination."

Except of course that USG's actions consistently indicate that a) America no longer has a right of self determination and b) even if it did, USG has absolutely no interest in working to maintain it. This is, for all intents and purposes, no longer a nation. It's just a piece of real estate; a hotel lobby-slash-parking lot for the global public to enter at will.

Blogger redlegben January 14, 2014 2:54 AM  

scoobius, the current and recent politicians have very little to do with how a country deals with outside threats to its right of self determination.

Churchill didn't believe in Chamberlain's message for his country's government. The future leaders determine how we react to such threats. Imagine living in the surrender-at-all-costs England of Chamberlain.

If enough people abandon their country/tribe, they will lose said country/tribe. History illustrates that people don't abandon their right to self determination. It leads to political change or bloodshed.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 14, 2014 3:11 AM  

11B: "What good is bombing Iran when you are losing your nation?"

And your civilization. And your race.

Not that I see what we would get out of bombing Iran anyway.

Actually I'd positively prefer for us not to needlessly blow up any Iranians or wreck their state.

Anonymous 11B January 14, 2014 3:13 AM  

I know of no other historical examples of solving such issues. That includes ignoring them. Action is actually necessary in one form or another. That is if you want to maintain your country's right to self determination.

How about some action directed at ending third world immigration and repatriating those that are already here. Or has our self determination in that area already been so compromised that ending third world immigration is off the table? I'd rather spend money we are wasting in DoD and use it to pay to peacefully repatriate as many third worlders as possible.

Blogger redlegben January 14, 2014 3:33 AM  

11B, your suggestion is in no way exclusionary regarding the historical ways to deal with external threats. In fact, it is complimentary. Think internment camps. You won't accomplish repatriation without a country's mood being determined to exterminate the culture it wants to repatriate.

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts