The Grand Old Homonymphs
We can't draw down troops in Iraq, we can't even talk about it because if 'they' knew we were leaving 'they' would really get nasty. There's a hint of truth there, but we started the blood bath, we are unwilling to end it, as that would be really expensive and would require a draft. There's not enough money or ethical mercenaries in the world to do the job with more contracts, bid or no-bid.
What do the idiots do instead? Make a highly publicised temporary surge, so the 'they' the idiots blithely label as insurgents know it is time to stand down their efforts for a little while until the danger of the surge can be judged, or has passed. They have shown us with vicious attacks of their own that all they have to do is go where the surge isn't.
I would say the surge has been an utter failure and fiasco, and a losing proposition for the US, our troops, and the Iraqi civilians. Even with the highly touted surge the improvement is barely measurable, and then only if done while disregarding every inconvenient statistic. These very narrow and itsy-bitsy improvements are so small that in any valid cost benefit analysis it would seem that the cost was not worthwhile. It is a akin to paying $1000 a month more for your car insurance to reduce your deductible by 12 cents, while expecting your lifetime chances of an accident to decline.
Republicans to the rest of the world:
Don't talk about withdrawing troops or when we might do so because then the enemy can plan.
Rest of the World should be asking:
So what?
Republicans to the rest of the world:
We're going to surge our troops here, here, and here on these days.
Rest of the World should be asking:
Why did you help the enemy plan for the surge?
Dictionary.com:
Insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
Me:
dubya: the first illiterate POTUS who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority (albeit corrupt, well, corrputed by us), esp. a toad who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws and citizens; revel without a cause.
What do the idiots do instead? Make a highly publicised temporary surge, so the 'they' the idiots blithely label as insurgents know it is time to stand down their efforts for a little while until the danger of the surge can be judged, or has passed. They have shown us with vicious attacks of their own that all they have to do is go where the surge isn't.
I would say the surge has been an utter failure and fiasco, and a losing proposition for the US, our troops, and the Iraqi civilians. Even with the highly touted surge the improvement is barely measurable, and then only if done while disregarding every inconvenient statistic. These very narrow and itsy-bitsy improvements are so small that in any valid cost benefit analysis it would seem that the cost was not worthwhile. It is a akin to paying $1000 a month more for your car insurance to reduce your deductible by 12 cents, while expecting your lifetime chances of an accident to decline.
Republicans to the rest of the world:
Don't talk about withdrawing troops or when we might do so because then the enemy can plan.
Rest of the World should be asking:
So what?
Republicans to the rest of the world:
We're going to surge our troops here, here, and here on these days.
Rest of the World should be asking:
Why did you help the enemy plan for the surge?
Dictionary.com:
Insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
Me:
dubya: the first illiterate POTUS who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority (albeit corrupt, well, corrputed by us), esp. a toad who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws and citizens; revel without a cause.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home