Keen Arrows: Recent Comments

Comment on New laws needed to protect us from ourselves?

oqmtodhw — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:24:48 GMT

brwlzpjm http://wcvswtzp.com zkewsnqw uuxhihhj mdyvyrov">http://qvibflgi.com">mdyvyrov [URL=http://wddrnebn.com]exdybcbh[/URL]

Comment on Bush's 60 Miutes interview

dzho — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:52:00 GMT

Your first example is spot on. Whether we send more troops logically depends on what we expect them to do. Bush has told us--'fewer restrictions' and 'hold territory'--and I would like to know what that means. That no one discusses this makes the whole 'to surge or not to surge' debate pretty asinine, if you ask me.

Comment on Bush's 60 Miutes interview

cliff — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:18:44 GMT

But honest people may not agree on what constitutes a "mistake." For example, if by mistake, you mean risking American lives by continuously riding in circles on patrol through hostile territory like targets in a shooting gallery, I agree. If you mean risking American life at all by being there and fighting this battle, I would disagree. In this world, those who refuse to defend themselves will die, eventually, undefended. Again, honest people may disagree on whether or not our presence in Iraq constitutes self-defense. I believe it does and that it has saved many lives world wide but especially in America. Could we do (and could we have done) better there. No doubt.

Comment on Bush's 60 Miutes interview

dzho — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:09:18 GMT

What honest people agree upon what we should do is that, after admitting mistakes, we stop making the same mistakes.

Comment on Can we do that?

dzho — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:23:26 GMT

The parking lot strategy is a good one. Been there, done that. But we won the war in Iraq already, in about three weeks, and it didn’t even require any parking lot. The problems came after that, with the Walmart strategy.
Warren’s right, the Army has no skills, ability, or particular incentive to distinguish amongst sometimes-armed jihadis and bystanders. That’s why asap troops occupy the ground they should turn it over to the police who do have. an Army has to disband or it will continue to do the only thing it knows and is trained to do, which is keep on fighting a war. The other side obliges by fighting back.
Those who can’t tell the difference and assign law enforcement duties to the army, ensure failure. Warren’s solution is to install a puppet colonial government. Been there, done that, too, notably in 1954 when we overthrew Iran’s democracy. We wouldn’t be in this mess if we could run colonies half as well as we can fight wars. Instead we have the army build walmart and run it, and they create new enemies, and we have to make a new parking lot…how many times have we retaken Fallujah now?
Fight the war like a war—go in, win, and get out.

Comment on Homeland "Security"?

lyssa — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:45:01 GMT

Thompson doesn't seem to have identified exactly what
"illegal activities in violation of state and federal law" Cintas would be in violation of.
WTF??

Comment on New laws needed to protect us from ourselves?

lyssa — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:43:34 GMT

We seem to have such statistics now:
http://gandalf-reconquista.blogspot.com/2006/11/have-you-daughter.html

Comment on Because She's Sooooooooo Special!

Aaron Johnston — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:35:33 GMT

Yikes. This is sad sad sad.

Comment on The most powerful man? His role in our future.

lyssad — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:38:16 GMT

We cannot 'attack the rebels in force' unless we know who the rebels are.

Military action is possible but counterproductive: it creates rather than lessens resistance unless used against the correct targets. Identifying the correct targets is police work. Assigning police duties to the military is a recipe for disaster, here and throughout history. Continuing a disastrous military strategy will continue to be counterproductive.

Comment on The most powerful man? His role in our future.

Cliff — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:27:36 GMT

"What more can an army do?" Surely you don't mean that further, more "ruthless" (to use David Warren's word) military action was not possible? Here's a quick list of possibilities (not recommendations) to demonstrate my point.
1. Secure the Syrian and Iranian borders against insurgency by either direct action in those countries or more aggressive confronation at their borders.
2. Attack insurgents and rebels in force rather than cruise the streets as targets.
3. Restrict freedom of movement of the natives (enhanced marshall law) in order to increase security.

Again, these are not my recommendations nor do I necessarily think they are bad ideas--they are simply examples that demonstrate more "ruthlessness" was certainly, easily possible.