And Americans are getting killed and maimed in ''iraq'' for WHAT reason again?
We CAN get ''iraq'' under control. The question is do we have the will to?
But we can't just WISH control over ''iraq'', we have to TAKE it. It's the only way ''the surge'' can be effective. We thought the ''iraqis'' could govern themselves, four bitter years of experience have PROVEN that untrue.
Yes, I know Vice President Bill Clinton went over to ''iraq'' to wag his finger at 'the iraqi people' and tell them 'to straighten up and fly right'. But it was all speaking loudly and carrying no stick.
It's ''crap or get off the pot'' time in ''iraq''. We can either TAKE CONTROL OF IT or take our leave of it and allow 'the iraqi people' to sort out their problems however they choose to...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 3:18 PM on Saturday, May 19, 2007  : 

I now officially begin the YIH FOR PREZ campain. I'm running as a Republican (Why not? Both of my cats are seeking the R nomination as well).
Considering that except for Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul the current slate are merely wasting oxygen, I figure I might as well jump in too.
My (and my cats) platform is:
1. Right after I'm sworn in as Prez, I will (as CINC) order ''our troops'' to get off their lazy butts and BEGIN ''the war in iraq''. THEY will have ''benchmarks'' and ''a timetable''. ''Our troops'' will be unleashed to win the war by any means nessessary.
Campain slogan; ''Let them FIGHT, let them WIN so they can come home''.
2. As ''our troops'' return home their service to America is unfinished. There is a significant number of Moslims in America. Uncle Sam is suffering from constipation, he needs a laxitive:

There is no such thing as Moslim-Americans. Sura 9:5 of the koran makes that quite plain.
3. While ''our troops'' BEGIN ''fighting the war over there'' I will see to it that The US Secret Service arrests, detains, and brings straight to the Oval Office Nihad Awad of CAIR.
I'll make a presentation of it, full orchestra and choral group playing and singing ''The Star-Spangled Banner'' as I personally behead Nihad Awad of CAIR. And Google WILL BE REQUIRED to post the thumbnail and link to the YouTube video...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 4:37 AM on  : 

The solution to this problem is so plain it's not funny. Our Marines should just grab the nearest ''iraqi'' by the hair, lift it up and put the barrel of his sidearm to it's head and say ''OK, where are they?'' if it gives us taqqiya (the moslim obligation to lie to non-moslims), we merely pull the trigger and send that moslim to it's ''allah''.
We repeat this procedure until our missing soldiers are found. No matter how many ''iraqis'' have to have 'their ticket (to ''allah'') punched'. We ARE fighting a war in ''iraq'' OR ARE WE NOT?
So our Marines have to step over THOUSANDS of dead ''iraqis'' to recover our fellow Americans that those foolish moslims have captured. I don't have a problem with that!!!
It just might convince the moslims that taking Americans hostage might not be a good idea...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 12:08 AM on Monday, May 14, 2007  : 

Every time I hear some random lefty call ''iraq'' ''Bush's war of aggression'' I want to vomit. But I also feel nauseous when I hear some Junk Food Conservative™ say ''we need to win this war''.
Because I'll put it bluntly, our affairs in ''iraq'' ARE NOT A WAR!!!
Frankly, I would like it to be one but even the Bush Administration doesn't have the stomach for that. CAN we win in ''iraq''? To quote Bush's favourite people; Si se puede! [Yes we can!].
Using Old West stereotypes in regard to the Bush Administration have been popular since before he was elected President the first time and I'll use one now; ''The new Sheriff in town''.
Why should we care if the ''iraqi parliment'' TAKES A TWO-MONTH VACATION in July? Why should we care what spews from the mouth of Al-Sadr's Tony Snow Al-Maliki? (Al-Maliki is no more the President of ''iraq'' than Tony Snow is the POTUS). LET the ''iraqis'' just screw around, pretending to cooperate with us if it serves their own personal agendas. Why should we even care?
We have over 160,000 ''Marshall Matt Dillions'' in ''iraq''. IF WE START treating ''iraq'' as a war where WE IMPOSE law and order on the savage frontier I do indeed believe we can get ''iraq'' under control.
And that's the rub, we don't have the stomach to seize control of ''iraq'' and rule it as a harsh despot. We want to continue to live in the fantasyland of ''if we just give them some more time they'll work their problems out''.
WHY SHOULD THEY? The way they see it Americans are social workers that they can BS to get whatever they want.
It's time for us to give ''iraq'' a deadline to clean up their act OR ELSE. Our only realistic options are IMPOSE law and order upon ''the iraqi people'' or tell them; ''We gave you a chance at freedom and civilization and the vast majority of you just sat there twiddling your thumbs. SO BE IT, keep twiddling your thumbs, deal with life after we leave. And don't come whining to us for help 'cause we're leaving the phone off the hook''...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 2:29 PM on Sunday, May 13, 2007  : 

But I can't help beating it. Over at my friend and fellow blogger Vanishing American, he wrote an excellent post on ''iraq''. In it he says:

My regular readers will have noticed that I seldom -- almost never, really -- blog about Iraq and the war. I find it too frustrating.

I stand as witness to the truthfulness of that statement.
I know I tend to harp on the subject, as I too find it completely frustrating. There is a mentality among talk radio and it's listeners that claim that anything that's not positive about ''iraq'' is a grand conspiracy between 'the liberal media' and the Democrats ''to destroy Bush'' and ''to betray our troops''. A phrase I continue to use is the old saying ''Do not try to teach a pig to sing, it does not work and it only annoys the pig'' which I believe fits our situation in ''iraq'' perfectly.
This false definition of 'victory' in ''iraq'' (a unified, 'westernized' ''iraq'' that is not governed by islam and is at least somewhat pro-American) IS IMPOSSIBLE.
It doesn't matter how long ''our troops'' stay there or the effort (and lives and limbs) that are spent trying to ''get the pig to sing'' the pig will not sing. It is a pig, pigs cannot sing.
Vanishing American also notes:

Stories such as the two linked above, [NOTE: this one and this one] oddly, fail to convince some supporters of the war in Iraq that perhaps it's time to leave the people of that benighted country to their own devices. The usual knee-jerk response is that 'there is good news in Iraq, but the MSM just won't tell us about it.' Incidents like the behavior of the demonstrators in Najaf, pictured above, fail to convince these stubborn people. They insist that the media simply plays up any incident like this, because they want to turn Americans against the war, and against the President.

What turned me against this so-called ''war'' is that we plainly cannot ''fix'' the ''iraq'' we have ''broken'' and we will never be able to. There have been many surveys of 'the iraqi people' (outside of the Kurdish region) where anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of ''iraqis'' support attacks on Americans. Just HOW are we going ''to win the hearts and minds'' of these people?
One of the arguments of leaving ''iraq'' is ''but it will be a bloodbath there IF we do''. My response to that argument is ''Please use the correct word, it's not IF but WHEN''.
The D's want us out before Bush's second term ends and the R's want us out after Bush leaves office. BOTH for purely political reasons. If Hillary (or Obama) is our next President the D's get blamed ''for losing iraq'' and if one of the many Bob Dole clones is our next President HE will be blamed ''for losing faith in the Bush doctrine''.
On Sept. 20^th, 2006 Rick Moran wrote:

Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now. The whispers in Washington that the President wishes to simply “hang on” in Iraq and leave the denouement to his successor is possibly the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard – which leads me to believe that it is not true. But it is equally immoral to simply apply more of the same prescriptions to a war that is now clearly out of control. Drastic changes are necessary. And if the President is not willing to apply them whether out of fear of the political consequences to his presidency or the Republican party, then he doesn’t deserve to sit in the big chair.

Emphasis mine. Rick, I FULLY AGREE. IT IS ''the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard''. What outrages me is that it's also true. Rick Moran I'm completely convinced that Bush IS that immoral AND that cynical.
I cannot believe the President is SO dense that he cannot understand ''the American people'' ARE OPPOSED to ''comprehensive immigration reform''.
Even his talk radio cheerleaders are cynically saying ''I fully support President Bush except for amnesty for illegals''...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 4:20 AM on Thursday, April 12, 2007  : 

I a previous post I mentioned that someone had noted ''Is Tony Blair a [wimp]?'' (I paraphrased due to the fact that I generally don't use that kind of language here).
Now I see that it has been suggested that Iran has achieved a victory in the situation over the captured and now released British Naval personnel. Which I agree, they did.
That would be like looking over the hands of two poker players and seeing that players ''A'' and ''B '' each have ''no pair, king high'' and ''no pair jack high'' and then looking at player ''I''s hand and seeing ''three 4's, a 10 and a 7''.
The proper strategy would be for players ''A'' and ''B'' to either fold or bluff as best as they can. In this hand player ''B'' folded and player ''A'' lamely attempted to bluff. Player ''I'' saw through that attempt to bluff and called. Player ''I'' takes the pot.
That is another drawback to having our forces in ''iraq'' in a futile attempt to 'nation-build' it. It presents about 100,000 Americans and thousands of British in a position to be attacked first by Iran's shi'ite proxies (Al-Sadr, the de facto ruler of about 60% of ''iraq'') with the ability to be quickly and easily reinforced with Iranian military if that should be necessary.
I've noticed that Iran has had little or nothing to say about our presence in ''iraq''. The reason why is Al-Maliki (the figurehead ''president of iraq'') is merely a puppet of Al-Sadr and Al-Sadr is merely a puppet of Iran's ruling council.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Bush had been able to talk Blair into likely sacrificing those 15 Britons in a missile/air strike on Iran. As soon as Iran confirmed the attack came from US/UK forces they would contact Al-Sadr and say ''We would like you to see to it that as many American and British are captured alive as possible, but if you can't capture them alive kill as many as you can''. It wouldn't matter to them ''that CNN helped them'', telescopes and trajectory alone would give them the needed information even faster than CNN could!!!
''President'' Al-Maliki will tell Bush what he wants to hear: ''The IDF is doing everything it can to get the situation under control'' while Al-Sadr's Badr Brigades are actively trying to capture or kill as many Americans and British as possible.
I do not see the sense in keeping 160,000 Americans so conveniently right where Iran wants them to be.

Do I advocate the US/UK as well as the token forces from other countries leave ''iraq''? ABSOLUTELY.
Is there ''a timetable for iraq''? Of course there is! Likely February 2009...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 3:40 AM on Friday, April 06, 2007  : 

I came across a comment on a blog that asked the rhetorical question ''Is Tony Blair a wimp?'' (in regards to those British soldiers who were taken hostage by Iran).
My response is ''And you thought he wasn't?''. When the Bush administration began pushing 'Get Saddam' (as if Saddam were actively working with al-quida to commit 9/11) they needed another reason to get other nations to join in.
So the strategy became: Not ONLY are we doing this because the world is under dire imminent threat from ''Saddam's WMD's'' but we are also ''freeing the iraqi people from Saddam's vicious, tyrannical rule''.
And THAT is what brought Labor Party (the British equivalent of the US Democratic Party) PM Blair ''on board'' with 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
To refresh your memory of March 20, 2003:

President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

Those words above in italics IS HOW AND WHY 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' played out as it did. That is what we sold to the British, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Polish, the Danish, and even the Japanese. The post-WWII Japanese Constitution explicitly forbid the deployment of Japanese Military outside of Japan. We encouraged them to change it ''for humanitarian missions'' which is what and why they did.
After it was made undeniable (to other than some whiny talk radio hacks) that ''iraq'' DID NOT present any threat to America it became the whining ''but they're poor and helpless so we gotta help them so they don't attack us''.
What does that actually mean? WELFARE for ''iraq'' FOREVER. We've attached ''iraq'' to the US Government teat until at least January 20, 2009. When ''W'' is finally a former President.
At THAT is what has really produced MY hatred for the President. ''The Surge'' is to tamp down criticizim of how badly 'Operation Iraq Freedom' has gone.
At best, ''the surge'' can be maintained for 24 months. Which is all Bush needs, keep it under the rug until 1/21/09.
''Make the NEXT President take the blame''. Bill Clinton taught him well.
UPDATE: What do I think of the Democratic House and Senate ''attaching timetables and benchmarks to spending''? It's all they have, and I doubt Bush will veto anything that makes it to his desk (If you think I'm wrong, see that link to 'comments' below? TELL ME WHY).
There should be no warning of our exit from ''iraq''. In fact, those American soldiers who have not been assigned passage on board airliners leaving Baghdad MUST BE ORDERED to tell ''iraqis''; ''Not to worry, there will more Americans replacing those who are leaving''.
Would that be Americans using taquyya against Moslims? GOOD.
Meanwhile, those Moslim cashiers employed by Target that won't even touch plastic-wrapped pork with gloves should be given a new home in ''iraq''. As should ''the flying imams''...

Labels: ''iraq''

posted by YIH @ 5:44 PM on Thursday, March 29, 2007  : 

And guess what? I AGREE WITH THEM!!! Why? Simple:
Calderon Tells Bush Mexico Needs More:

President Bush, working to rebuild strained U.S.-Mexico relations, promised Tuesday he would do his best to get a deeply divided U.S. Congress to change American immigration policies that are hated south of the border. "My pledge to you and your government, but more important to the people of Mexico, is I'll work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform,"

Looks like it'll take ''comprehensive impeachment reform'' to stop ''comprehensive immigration reform''.
To refresh your memory, Bush on the campaign trail in 2000:

Notice the flag.
Let's see, the borders are still wide-open, CAIR is still allowed to stay here and run roughshod over America, and ''the flying imams'' are suing and not being shipped back to the Middle East in plain pine boxes.
Reasons #1,#2 and #3 why over 3,200 of America's finest died in ''iraq'' in vain.
I'd like to see Congressman Tancredo initiate Articles of Impeachment right away...

Labels: ''iraq'', Immigration

posted by YIH @ 3:37 PM on Sunday, March 18, 2007  : 

And if Rep. Dr. Weldon (R-Florida 15^th congressional district) had the guts to say this I would be jumping for joy!!!

Dr. Weldon is my congressman. And NO, I did not vote for him. I abstained. Had Ric Keller ran in the FL 15^th I still would have abstained.
On the way to work I heard this on Orlando radio. The local Orlando talk host was blustering that Congeressman Keller is a ''traitor'' and a ''turncoat'' who ''does'nt support the troops''. I disagree with that former local TV anchorman.
I CANNOT disagree with what Congressman Keller said. And he had every right to say it on the floor of the House.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that those who furiously defend ''Operation iraqi freedom'' are merely doing it so THEY can 'go with clean hands' as ''their savior from the America-hating left'' PROVES to be an utter failure.
He has already stated his intention to bring 7,000 random ''iraqis'' to America as ''refugees''.
''The troops'' call them IED's or 'roadside bombs'. When they come home to find that their Commander in Chief BROUGHT those who were attacking them TO AMERICA WITH THEM will YOU ''support the troops'' THEN???
TODAY they are being called ''insurgents'' and ''al-quida in iraq''.
TOMORROW The President will be calling them ''iraqi refugees''.
THANKS A WHOLE LOT...

Labels: ''iraq'', Ric Keller

posted by YIH @ 4:59 AM on Friday, February 16, 2007  : 

Just got done from another visit to the ASK Show chatroom. I just mentioned what my policy about how to deal with moslims. Which is ''Separationism'':

We separationists affirm the following:

Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

But we cannot destroy Islam.

Nor can we democratize Islam.

Nor can we assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Allowing non-US citizen moslims (US citizen converts to Islam are a small and managable amount) to either stay in America or come here is the problem. There is a push to bring 20,000 ''iraqi refugees'' here. That cannot be allowed to happen. We are beginning to see the sunni-shi'ite blood fued not only in ''iraq'' but in Dearborn MI as well!!!
Robert Spencer put it in perspective:

Doesn't it occur to anyone who reads stories like this that it might not be a good idea to import this problem?

Italics mine. From the Washington Times link above:

Supporters of the existing policy have warned that hostile elements such as al Qaeda terrorists might try to enter the United States posing as refugees. Mr. McCormack did not say what steps might be taken to screen the applicants.

Again, italics mine. From what I've already seen of our so-called immigration policy the 20,000 would merely be the first 20,000 that apply. That would be the ''screening''. If an ''iraqi'' is #20,001 he or she won't get into America. If an ''iraqi'' is #19,999 he or she will.
Doesn't matter if he was Madhi Army or a so-called ''insurgent'', if that application gets stamped ''OK'' before the cutoff count, he wins and we lose. Regardless of what we do in ''iraq''.
UPDATE: Have we lost in ''iraq''? If you belive our actions in ''iraq'' were to ''To open another front in the War on Terror by helping to bring about a stable, prosperous, free and friendly Iraq.'' then we have indeed.

Labels: ''iraq'', Immigration

posted by YIH @ 11:04 PM on Sunday, February 11, 2007  :