Friday, December 08, 2006

The Donkey Study Group

I know that all you fine folks in Auroraland have been waiting with bated breath for The Aurora's take on the ISG's recent report. Unfortunately I was reading it while taking a dirt and needed the paper (I am very eco-friendly afterall) so I only read the even numbered pages (what can I say Im superstitious and believe its bad luck to wipe with odd paper)

How someone could seriously have the audacity to actually call this crap a strategy is beyond me. Now thats not saying much for the actual strategy in place today, as for the most part all The Fabulous Baker Boys are doing is echoing Bush's current plan without the cowboy vernacular and hyperbole. That is, to train the Iraqis until they are able to fend for themselves and then phase down when that is accomplished, which we are doing. The rest is a bunch of wishful thinking by their own words....

"Baker acknowledged that the Iranians were unlikely to help, even if asked. He said that during the course of the commission's discussions an Iranian official told him that Iran was not inclined to help. But Baker said he saw no harm in approaching Iran anyway, and if it declines to help, "then we will hold them up to public scrutiny as the rejectionist state they have proven to be." 1

Pretty pretty please with sugar and 99 virgins on top.....

Or naively ignorant.....

"Hamilton said that while Iran has been unhelpful to U.S. interests in Iraq thus far, "We do not think it's in the Iranian interest for the American policy to fail completely, and to lead to chaos in that country." He said the Iranian's main worry is that a chaotic Iraq would lead to a refugee crisis on its border." 2

Number one it is in Iran's interest if our policy fails, as it will....

a) result in a sympathetic shia neighbor

b) we will lose all clout and leverage in halting their admitted nuclear program

Heres The Donkey Plan....

1) More troops (eyes and rifles on every corner)

2) More killing bad guys (every neighborhood where an American is killed gets leveled...perhaps Iraqis will be less complacent turning a blind eye when watching johnny jihad plant a roadside bomb when they know their own home will be shock and awed as well)

3) Less nation building, they've got running water, working sewage and electricity. That is more of a courtesy than we provided the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Berlin. The only work left for the Army Corp of Engineers is to locate and deactivate IEDs.

Never before have we tried to rebuild a country before we actually defeated them. If we are at War then lets start frickin acting like it and kick some ass, this pusillanimous pussyfooting is getting us nowhere. Screw what the peaceniks are crying about, ignore all the laureresque media bullshit rhetoric about quagmires, I mean... civil war and start getting all Ghengis Khan (the last foreign invader to defeat Iraq*) on these camel loving mofos.

EE-Aw!!!

* now that I mention it, I wouldnt be against using the Mongolian tactic of walling in Baghdad, re-routing the Tigris and flooding Baghdad and other alqaeda and insurgent strongholds.

source

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm.

Rhino-itall said...

Good Plan Donkey. As you know i'm in favor of the rebuilding. The reason for that is because i believe, contrary to what you read in the ny slimes, that the majority of the Iraqi people want us there. I also believe that they would be willing to help us more if they believed we weren't going to abandon them like we did the last time.
Of course i'm also in favor of more troops, more killing bad guys, and of course the one thing you didn't mention which is knocking Iran out of the picture. Starting with their nuclear facitlities.

Anonymous said...

Whats pissing me off is that Bush isnt coming out and saying...

"Oh! Train the Iraqis then leave" "Great idea, where did I hear that before?, oh yeah..from me...over and over and over again"

This shows just how partisan and anti-Bush the left actually are, certainly the media. I understand how as I mentioned that Bush's hyperbole may wear thin on some but this is just silly. The arent anti-war, they are anti-W.

Bush says stay the course = Hitler

Iraq Study Group says stay the course (but ask our enemies for help) = Nobel Prize

Anonymous said...

Donkey you keep comparing Iraq to Japan and its just as annoying as the comparisons to Vietnam.

Are you sure you aren't wiping your ass with the leftist playbook?

Now you keep forgetting the small detail- that Japan attacked us. Iraq did not nor is there any evidence that Bin laden had any connection to Iraq.

So what the hell are you saying stupid shit like this for:

"That is more of a courtesy than we provided the citizens of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Berlin."

Did you forget we went there to "liberate" and bring them Democracy and apple pie?

Is this where we are, BOTH sides are calling 9-11 a Pearl Harbor to support their views? Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

I am not comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Apples and oranges, but unlike how the left uses Vietnam, I actually have a point.

In both the European and Pacific campaigns of WWII we delivered a death blow to our enemies resulting in final victory.

Im calling for such a strike (non-nuclear)in Iraq. Weve rebuilt fucking malls in Baghdad...what the fuck is that. Carpet bomb the whole fucking country, I say.

Anonymous said...

and actually....

Rhetoric aside as I am not of the democrization school of thought, we went into Iraq becasue Saddam repeatedly violated UN Resolution 1441, continuely gave UN weapons inspectors the boot, and was posturing that he had a weapons program and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

He was wrong.

Rhino-itall said...

donsky, if you think the majority of the people there don't realize that they would be iranian slaves by now if we werent there, you're crazy.
And Yes, Jesus did come back from the dead. I'm glad to see you're finally coming around.

Quagmire... that's kind of a funny sounding word. You know what though, it's also bullshit. We weren't even in a quagmire in vietnam, we just lost our will to kill the enemy because pussy's like walter cronkite were busy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Anonymous said...

That being said, I did make one blatant error in my post, one that I am extremely unhappy about seeing that I just read up on the subject and that I plan to correct once a winner has been declared.

A no-prize to the scholarly reader that spots it. Get googling Zontar.

gary said...

The Iraqis don't want us there. Polls show that a majority of them actually support killing American soldiers. Even if they did want us there, carpet bombing the whole country would certainly change that. We carpet bombed Vietnam.

The military says that we don't have more troops to send, beyond a possible short-term 20-30,000 increase, which wouldn't do any good.

The problem with your plan is that it is not possible and wouldn't work.

Rhino-itall said...

donsky, you say contrary to all the evidence, but don't cite any. I don't believe the editorial pages of the ny slimes, i do believe that the Iraqi people desire freedom. My evidence is millions of purple fingers. They came on foot, from miles away, and put their lives at risk to vote....MORE THAN ONCE! That's not faith, that's FACT.
The U.S. military is the only thing guaranteeing their freedom right now.
So you're right, i can't say that i've asked each one of them personally, but i would bet that the ones that voted would like for us to finish the job we started. I'm right there with them.

Finally, i don't blame cronkite for everything, but i do believe he was a major part of the problem. You want to blame the generals? Ok, but they won almost every battle that they were in. What more would you have them do? We lost because of the hippies and the pussy's at home. FACT
Deal with it.

gary said...

Vietnam: the Viet Cong were not strong enough to defeat us militarily but we were not strong enough to decisively defeat them either. They couldn't win as long as we were there. So, yes, just like Iraq the only way we could lose was to leave, which we did. And just like Iraq that means victory requires staying forever.

Nixon prolonged the Vietnam war 4 years, just to achieve a "decent interval" between our departure and their victory. That was Kissinger's goal. Was it worth the price? Now of course we are on good terms with Communist Vietnam.

Rhino-itall said...

donsky, i'm just using your criteria,
1. evidence- the poll i'm using surveyed the whole country and found that the majority of them desire freedom

2. deductive reasoning- since the people know that they are free ONLY because WE are there, i deduced that they want us to stay and finish the job.

This seems pretty simple to me. Especially when you figure that at least half of the country is sunni and or kurds and they REALLY don't want to fall under the thumb of the Iranians!
So you keep believing the usa today poll that asked 200 iraqi's in the green zone, i'll stick with my MILLIONS of purple fingers.

4 out of 5 dentists polled prefer trident, but then it was trident that formed the question. What kind of gum are they actually chewing is my question?

gary said...

Rhino, why use "deductive reasoning" when there have been actual polls conducted which show that the majority of Iraqis (even the majority of Shiites)want us to leave and support killing American soldiers?

gary said...

For an intelligent discussion of Iraq by a fellow Right Wing Nut see today's post at

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/

Rhino-itall said...

Gary, since you haven't figured it out yet, I don't believe those bullshit polls done by the MSM. They are biased questions, asked to elicit a desired response.

Like i said, what are those dentists chewing?

The people voted by the millions for freedom. They had NO guarantee of safety, and in fact were threatened to stay home. They chose freedom instead of tyranny. Did you forget about that?

What makes you think they've changed their minds? The fact that they have running water and electricity now in the majority of the country? The fact that they have food and medicine now in the majority of the country? The fact that saddam isn't killing and raping them anymore?

I'm sure there's a bunch of shiites who wish we weren't there, i'm pretty sure that the people living in the actual warzones (which is a tiny portion of the country) wish we were finished and gone already, but if we had a vote again, i'd bet anyone here that the majority would vote the same way they have before.

gary said...

Your probably right that the majority of Iraqis would vote the same way now. That is , the Shiites would vote for Shiites, and the Sunnis would stay home. So what?

You need to learn to distinguish between "wishful thinking" and "reality." Bush has said two thing recently that I agree with: the situation in Iraq is "bad" and there will be no "graceful exit."

Anonymous said...

I think you all missed the point.

WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT IRAQIS THINK.

I wish them the best, but whether you want to classify us as liberators or occupiers makes no difference to me. We need to stomp out the inurgencies, kill the terrorists and let the chips fall where they may. If we do that, if the left will allow us to and George grows a sack to do it, my gut feeling is once the bad guys are out of the equation...stability in Iraq (or the closest thing to it) will ensue. Everybody wins, and to those playing at home...that is a better result than everybody losing.

gary said...

But Donkey you don't have a plan on how to do that other than to carpet bomb the whole country. A majority of Sunnis support the insurgency. Saudi Arabia supports the insurgency with money. And if we succeed in killing all the Sunni insurgents then aren't we left with a pro-Iranian Shiite Iraq?

Anonymous said...

See my original post for plan. Its an outstanding one if I must say so myself, although Ive never been a particularly strong swimmer. But I will add, perhaps we should install a new puppet dictator as well.

...Im disappointed you havent called me out on the one glaring mistake in my original post.

Correction will be made at 4 PM EST

Anonymous said...

CORRECTION

I mistakenly cited the fact that Ghengis Khan was the last foreign invader to sack Baghdad. When in truth it was his grandson....Hulagu Khan in the year 1258. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused our readers.

anita said...

I think Hugalu Khan is my cousin twice removed.

Anonymous said...

Your cousins name doesnt happen to be Chaka does it?

I myself am of direct lineage to Temujin as well, so feel free to refer to me as Donkey Khan is you like.

seejanemom said...

Well said. Always a pleasure.

Hunky Husband was using the odd pages, though.

Did you guys know that "BIPARTISAN" is Farsi for "CHICKENSHIT"? Fascinating.

anita said...

seejanemom, you have a Hunky Husband?

NICE !!