Axis of Evil, Russia-Iran-North Korea-China-Pakistan

The Allies. Australia, United States, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Japan (Europe and Britain not included because of recent news)

Bring it on suckers, World War V time. Us against the rest of ya’ll.

Pakistan vs Afghanistan. China vs India. North Korea vs Japan. United States vs Russia. Iraq vs Iran. Let’s get it on.

They’ll be talking about this regardless of whether it is the “Econo-War” or a “Hot War” for centuries.

I don’t think my terms for war are the same terms the Bush administration is using.

What I was really comparing was the Isolationist stance against both wars, how that naé¯ve reluctance meant unnecessary losses in WW2 & how the present day Isolationists, if they get their way & pull the US out of Iraq prematurely, could mean even more casualties than what the Isolationist mindset brought in WW2. We pro-warriors can’t just keep quiet while it happens again.

Since you broached the subject of warring on “our own terms,” I just don’t buy it. If you anti-warriors had your way the US would have dithered around even longer than the 13 years wasted trying to deal with Saddam, until Saddam-supplied nukes were blowing American cities off the face of the earth.

I note also your taunt, “ … and oh yeah he(OBL) is still alive.” Gleefully salivating again? Not too long ago this blog was presented with a host of anti-warriors swearing that they never, ever did that, no, not them. I guess it’s a bit difficult to control since it seems to pop out anytime an anti-warrior gets flustered.

Please stop insulting every WWII veteran (including my grandfather)by comparing this war with a war to stop the military march of Hitler’s Germany and imperialist Japan. This is a war waged on our own terms. The bogus WW2 comparison is always used to squash any discussion of how we got into this mess and how we get out. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist mob not the Blitzkrieg. Bin Laden is not Hitler or Stalin, he is a well financed hitman and oh yeah he is still alive. And I have a suggestion for you on how to handle our current state of affairs: go in your basement and cover your head for the rest of your life, let neoconservatism make the decisions for you, you’ll be in great hands.

You forget that terroist sheets are black, to make themselves look intimidating, instead of white.

Hopefully this was just a wisecrack and not a serious cognation.

neo doesn’t do wise cracks. I do them however.

The Iraq Model seems to be a good source of information – thank you for that.

This is the first time you read an Iraqi blog? Where do you get your information… Riverbend?

What is it about Iraq that drives you to continue to hope and pray for a society so torn by differences to become a utopia?

Cause utopias are created by sacrifice, blood, and vigilance. Since we aren’t willing to do that social experiment in the US, we have to find some other country to do it in.

Not even one battalion is ready to fight without american guidance, its been three years!

There aren’t any British battalions that can do that either, except their Spec Ops.

The point is that today three years after the invasion there are no Iraqi battalions able to fight alone.

There is that military ignorance going on again. Hard to eradicate.

The enemy counts on a strong isolationist sentiment in the US.

I’m still taking notes and learning from the enemy’s expert propaganda techniques.

I’m making a list,

How to Make the West self-destruct using a bomb and a mosque.

You have to remember about Tet. Even though they got wiped out because they actually tried to fight the US Marines in the open with our artty support, they accomplished the obj. Which was to make the US media demoralize the American people. This Al-Qaeda/Iran offensive is another Tet offensive in the sense that they are seeking to generate more psychological damage than actual military physical damage.

It may be that this unifies Iraqis and such and such, but even military talking heads are now saying we have to pull out or do nothing while both sides fight it out. So if we pull out, because of this Civil War thing (and you see people here saying exactly that), then the terroists win regardless of how the Iraqis act.

It is the psychological side of war that is the most important, not the actual battlefield results.

Napoleon was considered a military genius primarily for the fact that he realized the ratio in warfare, 3 to 1.

The moment we take our boots off Arab soil and back onto our own is the day I will rejoice.

The majority of the nation wanted the US to stay out of WW2. Isolationism doesn’t make any more sense today than it did before Pearl Harbor. History indicates that the US should have entered WW2 much sooner than it did. Delaying the inevitable cost the plucky Brits & probably the US many more deaths than it would have if the US had jumped in quicker.

The Isolationists may hold sway again. And if they do I think the end result will be eventual casualty numbers to put WW2 to shame & they will be mainly Islamic & Middle Eastern. Let’s say the Democrats win in ’08 & immediately pull out of Iraq. Afghanistan would be next.

Then comes the first big homeland terrorist attack since 9/11. Does anyone doubt that it would come? Some think nuclear would be difficult but I’m not so sure. However, let’s say it’s a chemical attack & kills thousands at the Rose Bowl. What then? If mere thousands, let’s say 5,000 die, would that be enough to go to war? But against who?

I doubt if the US at that point would war against any country because Isolationists would probably still be in power & it would probably be impossible to find out for sure who was behind the attack. NYT headline the next day: ROSE BOWL DEATHS A CRIMINAL MATTER SAYS ATTNY GEN. The ‘criminals’ would continue these relatively low-grade attacks — a few thousand here, a few thousand there. I’m sure the Isolationists would continue to spin the claim of criminal activity, as opposed to acts of war.

Eventually, if the Isolationists succeed in keeping “our boots” off Arab soil, the terrorists will become nuclear. Once a whole US city or two are blown to bits, what then? Well, the President that happens to be in office would have to start slinging nukes at the most likely suspects, there would be little choice at that point, because terrorists get nukes only from governments. A nuke is not something that can be put together at a hidey-hole in the desert. I believe Iran, Syria, Iraq(it’ll be under Jihadist control), Afghanistan(under Taliban control) & perhaps Pakistan would be tactically nuked in all their population centers as well as strictly military targets.

US warfare niceties of the years since WW2, such as trying to limit civilian casualties, would be totally ignored; US subs would empty their missile bays. The initial deaths would be legion & set new records but many more would occur afterward from starvation & disease because those countries would be totally destroyed.

It would be pretty rough in the US also because if the terrorists are clever they might be able to set nukes off in a lot of US cities; there would be no way of telling how many unused nukes the terrorists would still have. An economic depression would no doubt ensue in the US & the Middle East & spread world wide, what with the loss of the oil from the just-nuked Middle East — which would ensure even more deaths.

All that, so some can rejoice now.