The cause of Bush's victory, or, the death of the Dems.

[Cain]

1.  The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example).  Only this, and nothing more.

What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?

I thought it was "We dont need as many troops because we can use private military companies which I have stocks in".

Also, I felt that analysis was way off in its understanding of guerrilla warfare and terrorism and how those work.  The US will not win by conventional means, pure and simple.  To fight guerrillas, you need excellent intelligence.  More intelligence is going to the insurgents (who have infiltrated the army and police) then it is to the CIA and DIA etc.

Also, you need to stop playing up to the media and making "shows of force".  Guerrilla warfare is a nasty battle of ambush, counter-ambush and attrition. Actions like Fallujah are only made worse when you telegraph the attack months in advance.

The Shi'a and Kurds aren't going to get involved and help either, to a great degree.  Al-Sadr hates everyones guts and probably holds a party everytime a platoon gets blown up, whereas the rest are willing to let the US soak up the damage while they run the country and get rich off oil profits.

Its going to go the way of a classic third generation war.  No side will have a clear advantage, it will be messy with lots of civilian casualties and it wont fizzle out for about 10-15 years, minimum.  If we leave Iraq, expect some hotheads wanting to bring some payback to our shores.

[LMNO]

[jingoistic]
But we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here!
[/jingoistic]

[Cain]

That logic kind of broke down after

Madrid
London
Amman

And all the others I forget....

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

Or "play like a B side".

That also.  In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now.  When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic.  Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)

The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore.  The real danger is Al Sadr.  I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.

Unfortunately, Al Sadr is the only one who stands to know how to really run the country. The areas under his control are some of the most prosperous and least wracked by bombings.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or "play like a B side".

That also.  In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now.  When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic.  Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)

The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore.  The real danger is Al Sadr.  I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.

Unfortunately, Al Sadr is the only one who stands to know how to really run the country. The areas under his control are some of the most prosperous and least wracked by bombings.

And this is because...

TGRR,
IS leading up to a point, here.

[LMNO]

It it because he speaks God's Word?

[The Commander]

Sorry guys, but you are all off the mark.  Sistani is the real power broker over there.  The only reason the whole country didn't rise up against us is that he told them not to.

The Commander
DIA

[LMNO]

So, he speaks the word of God, then?

[Cain]

Sistani is the supreme Ayatollah of Iraq (or whatever he's called), its true.  However, last time I checked, he didnt have thousands of armed men doing his bidding.  If its a choice of following the one who is more sincere in his theology, or the one who is similar but has lots of guns and weapons, I know where my alleigance would go.

[LMNO]

Dammit, I just want to know who has the Word of God!

[Cain]

I do.  And it can be yours, for only $49.99! (doesnt include post and package).

[The Commander]

Sistani is the supreme Ayatollah of Iraq (or whatever he's called), its true.  However, last time I checked, he didnt have thousands of armed men doing his bidding.  If its a choice of following the one who is more sincere in his theology, or the one who is similar but has lots of guns and weapons, I know where my alleigance would go.

Maybe I wasn't clear.  Sistani does have armed men by the thousands doing his bidding.  For now his bidding is that the Shia seek a peaceful colution with the Sunni's and Kurds and tolerate our presence there.  If said otherwise that country would go up in flames.  While the Kurds might stand a chance, the Sunnis would be wipped off the face of the earth, or at least pushed out of Iraq, and the US would have a hell of a time holding on to any semblance of power projection there.

Sorry guys, if anyone has the Word of God in Iraq, it's Sistani.  We're quite lucky he is on our side...sort of.

The Commander
DIA

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

Or "play like a B side".

That also.  In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now.  When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic.  Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)

The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore.  The real danger is Al Sadr.  I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.

Unfortunately, Al Sadr is the only one who stands to know how to really run the country. The areas under his control are some of the most prosperous and least wracked by bombings.

And this is because...

TGRR,
IS leading up to a point, here.

Al Sadr delivers the fucking goods, unlike all the other factions or politicos who keep talking shit and not once ever preventing anyone from getting vaporized on the highway.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example).  Only this, and nothing more.

What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?

Bullshit.  He did it on the cheap, so that it wouldn't gouge the money set aside for the tax cuts.

We wound up spending far more than we would have if we did it right, of course.

The thing to remember is that these assholes are not evil geniuses...they are just thugs.  I deal with people like these every day, except the shitheads I deal with weren't born rich.

[Irreverend Hugh, KSC]

1.  The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example).  Only this, and nothing more.

What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?

Bullshit.  He did it on the cheap, so that it wouldn't gouge the money set aside for the tax cuts.

We wound up spending far more than we would have if we did it right, of course.

The thing to remember is that these assholes are not evil geniuses...they are just thugs.  I deal with people like these every day, except the shitheads I deal with weren't born rich.

Well, sorry I couln't be there, but I got stuck in Chicago dealing with Irish American tards from the S. Side. Fuckers!

Don't worry. We'll give it to them.