Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Iraq is stable?

An article today claims that Iran and Syria are out to “destabilize Iraq.” Funny, I didn’t know that Iraq was stable at the moment. I thought there were at least three separate sorts of civil wars raging, in addition to the anti U.S. elements. That is, there are the Kurds who want their own way in Kirkuk and are willing to fight for it, there are the Sunnis who are opposed to Shiite control of Iraq, there are at least two different Shiite factions warring against each other. And there are those who want the U.S. out of their country. This is stable? In any case, it seems to me unlikely that Iran and Syria want a destabilized Iraq on their borders. It seems to me they are far more likely to want the U.S. to get the hell out of there so some stability might actually be possible. But, of course, what to I know? Nothing. I only get information from the MSM, the BBC, and the internet, and none of them probably know what’s what any more than I do. Of course this all has to do with Iranian and Syrian “meddling.” What are they meddling in? They are meddling in our meddling. After all, they are Iraq’s neighbors, we are 6000 miles away.

U.S. troop deaths are at their highest level in 7 months. See, everything is working, the surge, our non-existent strategy, our successes in Bagdad, including our successful defending of the so-called “green zone.” Would they dare attack our 750 million dollar “embassy,” with its more than one hundred acres and heavily fortified walls and buildings? Only about every day, I guess. See, it’s just like Korea and Germany where we’ve had troops for sixty years. There is only one slight difference. The Iraqis don’t want us there. Maybe in a hundred years they will learn to love us, after all, we did “liberate” them from the evil dictator Saddam and obviously conditions there are much better than they were. Just ask your average Iraqi.

Oh, and things are going well in Afghanistan, too. There is a claim that al Quaida and the Taliban are massing for an attack on the U.N. troops but we are not even being told about it. Don’t ask why we aren’t being told about it. Afghanistan is a disaster than will always be just that. No nation has ever conquered Afghanistan, not the British or the Russians and now not the U.S. Come to think of it, why would we want Afghanistan anyway? Oh, yeah, the pipe dream of the pipeline that was going to bypass Russia or something. That’s never going to happen. It would cut too much land away from the opium crops which have flourished under our attempts to do the impossible. Why in the world are we still in Afghanistan? It’s not as if we really want to find Osama whats-his-name. I’m not much on conspiracy theories but the longer this goes on, and the longer Osama goes on, the more I am inclined to believe my initial suspicion that he is still a CIA asset of some kind and we don’t want him found.

The deadbeat goes on. I guess no one ever told Bill Clinton that you could go to hell for lying, the same as stealing. Now he’s telling everyone that it is not Hillary’s campaign that has gotten down and dirty, it’s really Obama’s. Come on Bill, even a four year old can do better than that. I confess to finding it amusing that everyday the MSM asks if the Wright issue will go away. Obviously it won’t go away if they keep asking about it every day. It will never go away as long as they can keep asking about it every day. And if they didn’t ask about it every day they might have to actually consider something serious like the “war,” the recession, the torture, other war crimes, health care, education, our rotten superstructure, etc., etc. The Reverend Wright is so much easier. Maybe Spears or Lohan will come through with another ridiculous move to spare us the Reverend for a while.

“It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man.”
H. L. Mencken

No comments: