Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

19 Responses

  1. car
    car August 31, 2006 at 11:37 am |

    Yeah. Now contrast that with what Keith Olbermann said yesterday. At least someone’s saying something now.

  2. Galloise Blonde
    Galloise Blonde August 31, 2006 at 12:16 pm |

    Belly flunks?

  3. Tuomas
    Tuomas August 31, 2006 at 12:28 pm |

    Breaking the army in Iraq?

    No hyperbole there!

  4. human
    human August 31, 2006 at 12:28 pm |

    And with the word “tickle-parties” I suddenly find myself with an overwhelming urge to smash this asshole in the mouth with my fist. How unladylike of me.

  5. Hestia
    Hestia August 31, 2006 at 12:39 pm |

    Criticizing Bush: unjustified hatred.

    Criticizing liberals: a completely reasonable pasttime.

    And that concludes our “Things I Have Learned from Jonah Goldberg” part of the program.

  6. Tally Cola
    Tally Cola August 31, 2006 at 1:02 pm |

    His Superdome thing is shockingly appalling. What a dick.

  7. Natasha Yar-Routh
    Natasha Yar-Routh August 31, 2006 at 1:06 pm |

    No hyperbole there!

    No there isn’t any hyperbole there. William Lind, very conservative and a expert on tactics and strategy, has warned that a Jena level defeat is probable in Iraq. Jena is the battle where Napoleon broke the Prussian army completely, a total route. So yes the US army is being broken in Iraq.

  8. Matt Browner-Hamlin
    Matt Browner-Hamlin August 31, 2006 at 1:17 pm |

    Great post zuzu! Thanks for taking this asshat to task for his raging asshattery.

  9. Tuomas
    Tuomas August 31, 2006 at 2:28 pm |

    William Lind, very conservative and a expert on tactics and strategy, has warned that a Jena level defeat is probable in Iraq.

    What. The. Hell. Utter nonsense. There isn’t any regional actor in the area that could “rout and crush” the US Army.

    My point was that when you look at tactical side of the equation — a loss of little over than 2000 troops in completely occupying a country the size of Iraq, it is far from “breaking the army”.

    An entirely different question is whether the US Army can achieve any meaningful goal in Iraq (other than deposing Saddam which is already achieved), whether it is possible to win the “hearts and minds”.

  10. Tuomas
    Tuomas August 31, 2006 at 2:46 pm |

    Is it bad? Obviously.

    Has the army been broken? No, I don’t think so. Quite far from it.

    And you have to look at the fact that there are no identifiable objectives or goals for ending this thing.

    I did, which is exactly why I’m sceptical about the whole thing.

  11. Coopster
    Coopster August 31, 2006 at 2:51 pm |

    My point was that when you look at tactical side of the equation — a loss of little over than 2000 troops in completely occupying a country the size of Iraq, it is far from “breaking the army”.

    But “breaking the army” isn’t a tactical issue, it’s a strategic one. The fiasco in Iraq is not only demoralizing the troops currently in uniform, it’s creating a generation of young people who will be extremely reluctant to sign up in the future, similar to the situation in the 1970’s immediately following Vietnam.

    The Army may not be broken in one fell swoop in Iraq, but it will be broken for many years to come.

  12. norbizness
    norbizness August 31, 2006 at 2:52 pm |

    That’s right, all those callups and the National Guard not having any equipment and the age rocketing up about 10 years and around 15000 serious injuries. No problem! Apart from that, how did you like the war, Mrs. Lincoln?

    The secret origins of Jonah’s nickname (“Doughy Pantload”) began in May 2004, when the Earth was young and the internet was still cooling.

  13. Rhiannon
    Rhiannon September 1, 2006 at 9:14 am |

    Here’s something, sort of related to “the next gen of soldiers” thing… just last week my sister’s high school tried to get her to sign a release of information form for THE ARMY, so the school could release her information to the Army…. I told her NO WAY.

    How is it even LEGAL for them to ask my 16 year old sister to sign that anyways? Shouldn’t that be up to her parent/guardian? At least until she’s 18…

  14. Esme
    Esme September 1, 2006 at 2:44 pm |

    Rhiannon, if I recall correctly, a condition of No Child Left Behind was that high schools were required to turn over student records to the army for the purposes of recruitment. The movement to get “opt-out” forms out to parents was the Leave My Child Alone campaign spearheaded by Cindy Sheehan I believe. I don’t currently have the energy to find my links for it, but google is, in fact, your friend.

  15. Mary
    Mary September 1, 2006 at 3:55 pm |

    When my little cousin turned 18 a couple years ago he signed up for the army, and the army promised him he would not be sent to Iraq. Well, surprise surprise, he was shipped off to Iraq the moment he completed his training. So fucked up….
    Oh, and “the homeland”? Such a creepy term…

  16. Buffalo Gal
    Buffalo Gal September 3, 2006 at 8:08 pm |

    ah, Norbizness: “Unfrozen Caveman Columnist.” pure, classic, and so, so right.

  17. kate
    kate September 4, 2006 at 12:33 am |

    My daughter and some of her then uncommitted to anything friends have found themselves over the last couple of years stopped in shopping malls, in front of diners and everywhere else where young kids hang out, by recruiters wanting them to sign information forms and meet them for their one on one propaganda forums. They promise free money, free college, lotsa fun and nothing about fighting in a war. In fact, when the kids (mine usually) would ask about whether they’d be deployed in Iraq, the recruiters gave pat answers of denial.

    For low income kids who see college as a rich man’s right and a poor kid’s impossibility, low wage jobs and no future, the army recruiters offer a juicy bit of hope. They target low income kids specifically, knowing that their social floundering and lack of direction makes them ripe for the picking.

    Overheard whilst waiting for a friend in a Dunkin’ Donuts where FoxNews was bleating out of an overhead television on August 31:

    “Up next, should the government pay for every natural disaster? We’ll talk to _______ to investigate why just possibly the best option is for the government to opt out completely in the disaster clean-up business.”

    …a government official from some part of the war machine, “…we’re winning in Iraq, there’s no question about it, we have a moral duty to stick it out and in force….”

    reporter to lacky supposed to offer counterpoint…”So, are you saying that the press coverage in Iraq is not accurate? Are you saying that there is a press cover up?”

    Lacky, “No, I think the coverage is getting the full story to the American public and the American public doesn’t like what they see…we’re not saying to get up and leave now…but the public wants an end to this…a plan toward gradual deployment…”

    I listened to this whole snippet exhange and couldn’t believe how the Faux News reporter attempted time and again to paint the ‘liberal’ into a corner as an ‘extremist’. The ‘liberal’ backs off by disclaiming the ‘extremist’ views and basically trumpets Liebermanism couched as ‘the left’.

    That people listen to and watch this propaganda unfold before them 24/7 and believe it as news just makes me ill.

    A plumber I hire, one of my subs, said once to another on a jobsite, “You remind me of….oh, who’s that guy on Fox News at 8?” or something to that effect, assumption being that everyone else, like him has their eyes and brain glued to that shit. He’s a vietnam vet. We discussed once the ravages of war and the social tragedy it causes, “Well at least there are some people willing to fight those wars for us.

    When the general public exhibits, like my plumber, a complete lack of ability to think critically and analyze their information, then we are in serious trouble.

  18. GlennB
    GlennB September 5, 2006 at 8:03 am |

    Yes, good post, zuzu.

    In answer to Tuomas, Iran has the capability to infiltrate southern Iraq. I have seen (albeit rarely) speculation that our major supply line could be strangled, as they are truck convoys that travel north from the gulf. Sitting ducks for guerilla attack. I don’t know how true this is, and don’t have references handy.

    Iran also may be collecting anti-ship missiles (China is) and could provide a major distraction in the gulf. (Heck, we had a ship nearly blown out of the water – accidentally, it was mistaken for a tanker – by our ally Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.)

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.