US turns over control of 12th Iraqi province
The U.S. transferred control of a southern Iraqi province (a very NON imperialistic thing to do BTW) to Iraqi security forces. This province, Babil, used to be in what was called "the triangle of death" and illustrates the fact that security is improving across the country. This makes 12 out of 18 provinces now under Iraqi control. This is great news! The number of attacks over the last year have fallen by %80 which again is great news. There are some however that would like to see Iraq fail if only to give president Bush a 'black eye'
So two thirds of the county is now back under Iraqi control. Not that the main stream media is reporting that with any gusto! The fact are the facts though. The USA has been steadily working to defeat al queda in Iraq for several years now and the whole operation is finally starting to bear fruit.
Attention all brainwashed leftwing nutcase liberals:
The liberals (even THEY dislike that word) have this notion that America is an imperialist nation. They just love to point out our war with Iraq as PROOF that America is an evil, imperialistic nation governed by greedy war mongers. The problem with that argument is that imperialist nations go to war to acquire new terrirories and colonies. Imperialist nations do not systematically give back provinces they control.
For instance after ww2 when Russia controlled East Germany, they did not work toward rebuilding the state and handing control back over to Germany. No. They were IMPERIALISTS and they KEPT THE LAND for 50 years or so.
Now, it would take an extremely bitter liberal (aren't they all?) to somehow imagine that the turning over of yet another province (two thirds now) to Iraqi security forces is motivated by Americas boundless imperialism. LMAO!!!!!
The truth is the liberals couldn't possibly imagine how the USA could ever take control of the situation in Iraq. Just last year nearly ALL of the liberals in the media and in government were loudly protesting that the war is UNWINNABLE!
Well, as history is unfolding that assertion has proven to be completely wrong. The situation has improved about %80 and denial of that fact is just embarrassing and absurd.
So why could George Bush 'see around the corner' when the Liberals couldn't? Why did George Bush have a more accurate vision of what could unfold in Iraq than the Liberal Elite? Could it be that Liberals are just stupid? For a lot of people that reaseon would suffice but not for me.
I realize that Liberals are not stupid people. They just let their emotions get in the way of sound reason. That's why they are liberals in the first place! See, the liberals HATE george bush. They as a group have called him "Bush Hitler" - "Nazi" - "Terrorist" and so forth. The most important goal for liberals in the last 8 years has been to make George Bush look bad. That's it.
Once you understand the Liberal mindset then and only then can one begin to understand their pessimistic attitude and visionary shortcommings regarding the war in Iraq.
Believe it or not folks (I'm NOT making this up) most liberals still wont admit that the surge worked!. Yeah, ok. They probably think the south won the war and that Germany still hasn't been defeated too. LMAO!!!
Hatred blinds people from reason. Hatred breeds foolishness. That's the reason the Left got it wrong in Iraq. That's the reason the Left said the war was totally unwinnable. That's why the Left was rooting for the enemy! They wanted to see the USA LOSE the war in Iraq just so they could gloat over George The Terrible!
What selfishness! What self-centeredness! What a display of intolerance toward people with different world views!
Mark my words, in ten or even twenty years from now when Iraq is fully integrated into the wold economy, trading, exporting and importing goods, at peace with the nations surrounding them, the liberals will STILL say that the surge didn't work! LMAO!!!
It's like a 500 pound man denying that he eats too much.
2 comments:
RWL just because we win battles does not mean that we will win the war. And the problem is that you perceive the war as being In Iraq.
The war is in the hearts and minds of people all over the world... and our continued presence in the middle east strengthens their resolve. Don't confuse the handoff of a city as winning - it simply means that the smarter bad guys decided not to wait around and get killed by us. It doesn't mean that we've "Cleansed" a city. Nor does it realistically mean that, when American dollars and influence have left the region that it will hold.
Irrespective of the possibility that Iraq will become a "trading partner" and be a country in the image of western civilization, your notion of "Winning" is similar to how the hawks felt about Vietnam... if we just win enough battles...
You are probably too young to remember Ho Chi Minh's prophetic words: You may kill 10 of my men for every 1 of yours that I kill But even at that ratio, you will lose and I will win.
HCM understood something about war that we understood when we took our freedom from the British, but have since forgotten. The only way to "win" (according to the way you see things) in that area will be to pave the entire region and kill everyone. Everyone. And when that is accomplished, and all that is left are people of ANOTHER color and religion that are forever pissed off at us, we can then start killing all of them.
You perceive that part of the world through your very Red American Eyes. The problem, is that the rest of the world does not. And you will not be able to bomb them into liking you.
The point is that Liberals think of America as an Imperialist nation and often point to Iraq as an example.
I'm simply pointing out that an Imperialist nation does not 'give back' the provinces it controls.
So come back and agree with me now that it is incorrect to point to Iraq as proof of America's imperialism.
Post a Comment