Did it ever occur to you that, on a blog where over half of the words are blockquoted from some other source, you might be insulting your hosts at the same time as you insult Anderson?

I see that Anderson has his nose in the dictionary again.

When exactly did it become a crime on the Militant Right to have a decent vocabulary?

I've another phrase for you to look up, Herb. Ad hominem.

Regards, Cernig

The Bush Admin is perfect. Watch what comes next: they will start blaming the military for not doing things correctly - and then this will transform into blaming Clinton for downsizing the military - it is inevitable.

Will someone explain to Herb the conventions of blockquoting? I suspect I would muff it.

Oldcrow: There has never been a danger of civil war in Iraq this is a myth put out by the anti-war crowd.

Wow. Just "wow." Herb and Zelsdorf are now merely two members of a triumvirate.

And what exactly do you think the goals of the insurgency are that we are destroying and degrading? And leaders of terrorist groups, as I�ve posted in the past, are lead by the members of the group, not the other way around. That is why Zarqawi�s death had no effect on the insurgents tactical abilities.

The same as any insurgency or terrorist group to intimidate the population into submission and take over the government of the nation or territory they are fighting in. In this they have failed completely and the terrorist's have no tactical abilities every time they have taken on any well trained military forces whether Iraqi or American they have lost miserably that is why they target civilians.

A myth, evidently, also perpetuated by senior military officials, and ranking members of Iraq�s new administration, as well as civilians on the ground. Go read an Iraqi blog and get the view from them.

Exactly which senior military officials? And don't even try to invoke Zinni or Murtha those dogs don't hunt as for Iraqi blogs sure try Iraq the model if you want an unbiased view Iraq the Model in my opinion the best blog out there on Iraq. Omar is very good at analysis he lives in Baghdad and is a Sunni.

Again, go ask an Iraqi who is there. Even under Saddam, there was not the ethnic tension there is now. Sunni�s were favored and put in power because of cronyism, not because of anti-shia sentiments.

UH HUH and here you prove your total lack of objectivity and lose all credibility. Go tell that line of BS crappola to all the Shia's and Kurds who are looking for their reletives in the mass graves as I recall there was not much tension between Jews and other Germans in Nazi Germany either maybe because all the Jews were busy dieing in concentration camps.

I fail to see how this can be portrayed as Islam vs everyone else, please enlighten me.

Uh I am not sure how to enlighten someone who does not see what is in front of their face everyday as Mark Twain said "Never try to teach a pig to sing it just wastes your time and annoys the pig".

Nationalism is political religion. They really do act the same. And how exactly do suicide attacks change the nature of things? It�s just an easier was of delivering a bomb. What difference does it�s delivery method make to the people it kills?

Sorry have to throw out the BS flag on this one. A person who believes in his religion does not see dying as a bad thing a believer in a political system does and so you can negotiate with them unlike a religious fanatic. No it is not just an easier way of delivering a bomb it is also far more accurate than the most modern smart bomb and much much harder to detect and stop. It is fairly simple to to invent or find counter measures against IED's or conventional bombs not so of the suicide bomber.

Excellent post. I might add that one of the democrats bore false witness against his fellow soldiers - in his speech on 22 Apr 1971 in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. And admitted to meeting with America�s enemies(Viet Cong) in Paris.

He already lost the election, let it go. Or is Kerry the new Clinton, and everything that goes wrong will now be blamed on him until we find another scapegoat?

The biggest single strategic accomplishment by the insurgency has been keeping US forces in Iraq. The second accomplishment has been driving ethnic tensions to the brink of civil war.

This is incorrect it is not an accomplishment to keep a force in country that destroys or degrades your ability to accomplish your goals on an almost daily basis and kills or captures your leaders

And what exactly do you think the goals of the insurgency are that we are destroying and degrading? And leaders of terrorist groups, as I've posted in the past, are lead by the members of the group, not the other way around. That is why Zarqawi's death had no effect on the insurgents tactical abilities.

There has never been a danger of civil war in Iraq this is a myth put out by the anti-war crowd.

A myth, evidently, also perpetuated by senior military officials, and ranking members of Iraq's new administration, as well as civilians on the ground. Go read an Iraqi blog and get the view from them.

I disagree when the majority of the population was Shia and the majority of the brutalizers were Sunni Baathists then the Shia would not view any Baathist as friendly so we had to get rid of them all in order to get the Shia majority on board.

Again, go ask an Iraqi who is there. Even under Saddam, there was not the ethnic tension there is now. Sunni's were favored and put in power because of cronyism, not because of anti-shia sentiments.

This is correct but not in the way you suggest, it is Islam versus everyone else

I fail to see how this can be portrayed as Islam vs everyone else, please enlighten me.

Communism is a political philosophy not a religion and the NVA and Vietcong did not use suicide attacks as their primary weapon neither did the IRA against the British

Nationalism is political religion. They really do act the same. And how exactly do suicide attacks change the nature of things? It's just an easier was of delivering a bomb. What difference does it's delivery method make to the people it kills?

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 23, 2006 16:44

Excellent post. I might add that one of the democrats bore false witness against his fellow soldiers - in his speech on 22 Apr 1971 in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. And admitted to meeting with America's enemies(Viet Cong) in Paris.
href="http://http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp">

Don't you ever have a thought of your own. If so, you sure don't show here on OTB.

Your masterful words are always the words of others and you present them here like they were of your own.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, on you.

This is incorrect it is not an accomplishment to keep a force in country that destroys or degrades your ability to accomplish your goals on an almost daily basis and kills or captures your leaders, it serves no purpose what so ever. There has never been a danger of civil war in Iraq this is a myth put out by the anti-war crowd. President Bush and his administration have always said Iraq and the GWOT were going to be a long war they never said they would pull the U.S. forces out quickly.

Posted by: Michael at July 23, 2006 14:31
The De-baathification was not necessary, as you suggest.

I disagree when the majority of the population was Shia and the majority of the brutalizers were Sunni Baathists then the Shia would not view any Baathist as friendly so we had to get rid of them all in order to get the Shia majority on board.

Posted by: Michael at July 23, 2006 14:31
Lets also be clear about the role of religion in the insurgency. It isn�t Islam v Christianity, not when they are blowing up a mosque a day over there.

This is correct but not in the way you suggest, it is Islam versus everyone else and thrown in for good measure is Sunni versus Shia and there is no comparison to Communism VS Capitalism thus no comparison to Vietnam is accurate, Communism is a political philosophy not a religion and the NVA and Vietcong did not use suicide attacks as their primary weapon neither did the IRA against the British. The Vietcong had North Vietnam supporting them the terrorists in Iraq do not have a comparable base of support what they do have is piecemeal and mostly private support.

Dude, take your meds...

Remember just a few short weeks ago when the administration was crowing about how it "got" Zarqawi, proving the correctness of it's policies. They have been pretty quiet since then, as the carnage has become even bloodier.

And let us not forget that in May of last year, Cheney told us the insurgency was "in it's last throes". Right.

At any rate, I am waiting for the right to tell us how it is Howard Dean's fault the the Bush admin has bungled the evacuation of Americans from Lebanon.

Good insight, JJ. One *also* wonders how much effort any top brass made to bring any C-I wisdom to the attention of Rumsfeld et al. Silence is about as useful as ignorance.

The JCS record in this war is looking to shape up as about as shameful as that in Vietnam. (See McMasters' Dereliction of Duty.)

The biggest single strategic accomplishment by the insurgency has been keeping US forces in Iraq. The second accomplishment has been driving ethnic tensions to the brink of civil war.

Remember that the majority in the insurgent leadership are not Iraqi's, but foreigners. They really don't have the population's interest in mind, they have their own interest in mind. And their own interests include having a weak Iraqi government and an unpopular occupational force in the country to continue to give them legitimacy and support among enough of the population to shelter them.

The De-baathification was not necessary, as you suggest. Sure we needed to get rid of a lot of the top leadership, but no more. Remember that the Baath party was the only legal political party in Iraq. If you wanted to work in government, you had to be Baath. Even public school teachers had to become Baath party members or lose their jobs. It wasn't an ideological or religious devotion, it was a necessary evil for most of the population.

Lets also be clear about the role of religion in the insurgency. It isn't Islam v Christianity, not when they are blowing up a mosque a day over there. It is Sunni v Shia, their equivalent of Catholic v Protestant. We all know how religion will effect an insurgency, we've had plenty of historical examples of this. There are also enough parallels with the struggle between Capitalism v Communism that I don't think the analogy to Vietnam is completely inaccurate.