Did you know that the real problem in Iraq is that we haven't yet "unleashed hell"? No, seriously, that's the problem. Take a look at this poll from Red State, the allegedly "serious" right-wing blog:
Question: On Iraq: Which Choice Strikes You As "Best of Show"?
Cut and Run 11% (60 votes)
S-U-M-M-I-T 3% (15 votes)
Stay the Course 9% (47 votes)
Can we unleash hell yet? 62%(327 votes)
Redeploy to the
country of Kurdistan
(which we create by fiat)
and wait six months. 14% (76 votes)
Total votes: 525
And these are the "serious" wingnuts? Holy crap. Surely, the comments to this poll won't be as bad as the "unleash hell" nonsense, will it?
Ha ha. Follow me over the fold and let's see what our trained psychiatric staff can do to help as we go.
OK, the doctors are ready, meds in hand. Nurses are standing by, so let's get started. Steel yourselves, this ISN'T going to be pretty, but serious mental illness never is.
We begin with bombing religious sites.
I only have one complaint about our prosecution by mbecker908
of the war in Iraq. First of all, I think we had plenty of troops on the ground. That said, my complaint is that we've been way to concerned about attitudes and feelings not concerned enough about making sure EVERYBODY knows who's winning.
We should have never taken religious sites off the targeting vectors, the first mosque that was used as an ambush site should have been bombed to rubble. The entire city of Fallujah should have been flattened. For starters.
There's no time like the present.
That's interesting, Mr. Becker. See the psychiatrist down the hall and pick up your meds on the way out.
Next up is a fine person named Whitfox, who dispenses with all of the "we're here to bring democracy to the Middle East" twaddle, suggests killing more civilians, and ends by blaming the victims before we kill them.
Agreed by Whitfox
War only ends when one party submits. The Hussein government certainly did, but other parties have not. We must either force them to submit, or submit ourselves. There really aren't any other choices.
Breaking up an determined insurgency is hard, bloody work. I suspect it means killing a lot more civilians than we're accustomed to. But this is the fault of those who turned to outlawry, not we who fight them.
I can understand why Bush hasn't wanted to do this. Many of his goals are related to winning converts to Westernism, and a harshly conducted war isn't going to help.
But one thing at a time: First we take control of the country. Then we can install the government of our choice, and hope Iraqis come to see the benefits. It worked in Japan after WWII; I don't see why it can't work here.
Mr. Whitfox, I think the meds can't help you. Please check in with that nice lady in the white coat over there -- she'll show you to your room.
Next on the hit parade of horror is a lovely lady named Rose. Saluting the recently medicated Mr. Becker, she presents a more, shall we say, religious take on the situation:
You have the Perfect Solution! by Rose
mbecker, you got the perfect nail.
I'd destroy every mosque whose imams promote violence, and do it with pork products.
ALL allied ordinace would be slathered with pork fat, and loaded down with ampules of bacon cologne.
All terrorists' remains would be buried by the military with pork products, especially pork weiners, and a pigskin shroud.
Anyone considered target worthy of being kidnapped by terrorists would have their clothing and skin be pork slathered and saturated.
Ohhhhkay. Ms. Rose, I think you're a little beyond what we can do for you here. See those nice men with the big heavy coat? Go see them, and they'll arrange for your transportation.
Now to the heavy duty cases. Here's one from a gentleman named "tbone," one of my personal favorite frothers at the loony bin that is Red State. He suggests that the reason Americans are unhappy with the war is that we weren't violent ENOUGH:
Americans would have been just fine with killing by Tbone
copious amounts of innocent Iraqis to take out the bad ones. If we had done that upfront, Iraq would not be the problem it is today. It is not to late to start that now.
Nurse, sedate this man, stat! Oh, shit, he's resisting. Security! Get this man tied down, sedated, and into that ambulance. Now!
OK, where were we? Oh, yes, more killing of civilians. Next up:
Hell, If they're close enough by Raven
To the target when the bomb goes off, they're either guilty by association or being used as humn shields. Sorry folks.
Besides, does anyone here remember a movie where two cops were talking about how to deal with a hostage stuation and the one says the answer is to shoot the hostage and take him out of the equation?
Nothing we can do here, folks. Just give him a shot, watch him for an hour, send him home, and move on.
Next, Mr. Whitfox got loose from the guards and spewed again:
Not sure how viable, but it's an option by Whitfox
The "unleash hell" option isn't about protecting people. It's about killing the killers. And anyone who might be a killer. And anyone who might be supporting the killers with resources or encouragement. And anyone near enough to these people to be caught in the fighting.
It is not a pleasant option, by any means. I'm not sure it was politically possible before the election, let alone now. It is an option, though.
Fostering Iraqi federalism would be great, but IMO it assumes more active cooperation than we're getting. If you're planning to do it by force, you have the same essential problem of terrifying the Iraqis into submission.
Obviously, we need a stronger dose of the medicine for this one.
Next is a patient who is sick and tired of all of this "democracy" crap. You know, the "democracy is great for us because we're really smart, but they're kind of dumb and chose badly, so fuck them" school of thought:
With all due respect, by Leverkuhn
screw their votes, and their right to vote. They've had their chance to vote. They've had three of them. They've chosen leaders who've participated in the Civil War rather than try to stop it. They've chosen leaders who have allied themselves with the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr. I, for one, have come to the conclusion that these people are no longer fit to govern themselves, so it's time to choose for them.
Besides, if they vote on the issue of U.S. forces in their country they would almost certainly vote to expell us, regardless of the fact that they'd be cutting their own wrists.
Nurse, please bring me a shot of the anti-hypocrisy meds, please? Thank you. There, there, everything will be fine in just a few minutes.
Next up is a case of "let's compare apples and oranges" derangement.
Unleash Hell by JimKouri
The problem with Iraq is that we didn't bring the country down to its knees. We started democratizing Iraq before we destroyed the enemies of Democracy and liberty. Simply, we put the cart before the horse.
Recall Japan at the end of World War II: they were so beaten into the ground that representatives of the new Japanese government -- with tears in their eyes -- begged General MacArthur to totally disband their military and never allow Japan to have a military ever again.
Today, America's leaders apparently believe in fighting a sanitized war -- a PC war. I'm not for a cut and run redeployment strategy; I'm all for the "sh*t or get off the pot" strategy.
Apparently, Mr. Kouri missed the "Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds" lecture last month. Let's get him a prescription for that as well as some mild sedatives, and perhaps that might work. We'll see him back in a month or so.
Down to the last two. These are hard cases, I think we might need to take extreme measures.
First up is a "johnt." He kind of scares me.
Never have figured ou why they get to have all by johnt
the fun with car bombs. Can't two play? A bomb goes of in Baghdad, a bomb goes off in Damascus, make that two.
An assassination in Baghdad, a murder in Tehran.
Realizing that we are in a war where our killing people is a bad thing, where piping the wrong music into a prisoner's cell is torture, and other such monstrosities, yet a little tit for tat might serve both as a reminder and a bracer to otherwise comfortable leaders in those countries. Make them crap in their pants at the thought of leaving the house to visit the seraglio.
Naturally we would do this selectively and humanely, nail bombs used only on a weekly basis, no beheading of defense ministers, paramilitary and military targets primarily, weddings and funerals to be torched only for officials. oh, and kidnappings, with videos of contrite and weeping victims pleading for a paid ransom.
I think this might get their attention, if not, well it's a nice thought.
Yeah. Good. Nice. Umm, john, see that nurse with the large hypodermic? She's going to take you into that room over there, give you a quick shot, and then you're going to rest. For a really, really, really long time. Bye now.
Parting words go to "Exsolvo," who wants to solve the Iraqi problem by expanding it to Iran and Syria.
My plan for redeployment - getting out of Iraq by Exsolvo
Special Forces into Tehran, followed by the Marines.
Infantry Division into Damascus
Excellent idea. Mr. Exsolvo, you've just been commissioned into the Special Forces, and you are in charge of this operation. Good luck.
Yeesh. Talk about a public service for you folks. I need a decontamination shower right about now.
All horrified kidding aside, this is fucking ridiculous. Those who opposed the war and were right, us "dirty fucking hippies" (hey, I bathe every day!) are told that our views are unserious and not worthy of consideration by the deep thinkers of the center like Jon Chait and Joe Lieberman. Meanwhile, the "serious" right-wingers have devolved into the frothing lunacy set forth above. Please, please, can somebody tell me just what the fuck is wrong with our discourse in this country when the people who are right are marginalized, and the nutballs that were wrong from the start are treated as deep thinkers, even when they write crazy-ass shit like this?