There’s a lot of talk going around at the moment about the war in Iraq being lost, ‘the war’ which war? What’s more out of all of the various armies in the country, which is losing it? After all there’s ‘the coalition of the willing’, but there’s also French and German troops and they certainly aren’t part of that, and what about the Iraqi army?
From what I can tell there are currently six wars going on at the moment, they are:
1: The war against Islamic terrorist ‘insurgents.’ [no matter what victories we {yes I’m using we I didn’t want to but I’ll think I’ll have to give in} have against them, they seem at liberty to attack any time they want, we are most definitely losing]
2: The war against terrorists insurgents loyal to Saddam, previously called The war against Saddam [ditto]
3: The war against ‘terrorist’ insurgents neither implicitly Islamic nor loyal to Saddam. [ditto]
4: ‘The war for hearts and minds’ yes this is a war, if ‘The war on terrorism’ can be a war then so can this, besides we talk about it enough it must be real. [seeing as we spend a great deal of our time blowing them up I don’t think we have any hope of possessing them, Losing with a capital L]
5: The war against the people of Iraq, we don’t like to talk about this one but we’ve killed enough of them that it becomes pointless to argue about intention, pointless to argue about what we did and did not plan. [we’re actually winning this one.]
6: The civil war [we were fighting to prevent this one, we didn’t, we lost]
[this is by the way a most interesting civil war in that it is a three way, a war fought between three parties all of whom are fighting each other.]
So there you have it, The coalition and all of its unwilling allies are fighting all of these wars, and losing all but one, the one that they……… we.. are fighting against non aggressors, civilians.
From what I can tell there are currently six wars going on at the moment, they are:
1: The war against Islamic terrorist ‘insurgents.’ [no matter what victories we {yes I’m using we I didn’t want to but I’ll think I’ll have to give in} have against them, they seem at liberty to attack any time they want, we are most definitely losing]
2: The war against terrorists insurgents loyal to Saddam, previously called The war against Saddam [ditto]
3: The war against ‘terrorist’ insurgents neither implicitly Islamic nor loyal to Saddam. [ditto]
4: ‘The war for hearts and minds’ yes this is a war, if ‘The war on terrorism’ can be a war then so can this, besides we talk about it enough it must be real. [seeing as we spend a great deal of our time blowing them up I don’t think we have any hope of possessing them, Losing with a capital L]
5: The war against the people of Iraq, we don’t like to talk about this one but we’ve killed enough of them that it becomes pointless to argue about intention, pointless to argue about what we did and did not plan. [we’re actually winning this one.]
6: The civil war [we were fighting to prevent this one, we didn’t, we lost]
[this is by the way a most interesting civil war in that it is a three way, a war fought between three parties all of whom are fighting each other.]
So there you have it, The coalition and all of its unwilling allies are fighting all of these wars, and losing all but one, the one that they……… we.. are fighting against non aggressors, civilians.
8 comments:
Interesting way of categorizing the war(s)...
Invisible wars are rather hard to win... since the war(s) you mentioned are most likely distractions from the real agenda.
C'est la vie.
Thanks for stopping by. About being "trashed," I actually thought the whole thing was funny, because I was attempting to be objective and some people can't see both sides of an issue. Maybe they think that their world is flat and they might fall of the edge.
About my newest entry -- I'm fighting a very serious legal battle for the innocence of my husband -- which has nothing to do with justice.
Cheers,
Katie
yeah i read you're trashing, well not the whole thing cos it was real long but it strikes me that neither you nor the mostly csh's [first word conservative last word head] were being objective but then its not really in human nature to be objective so this is no surprise.
as for 'invisible wars' i really don't think that any of them are invisible and the various reasons behind them are pretty damn obvious [oil, power, and an obsession with the end of the world] so they are pretty damn easy to quatify once you get out of thinking in terms of one land one war.
Well guess it's hard to be completely objective when I was laughing my head off at this one guy who kept coming back at me with things that made no sense whatsoever...
By the way, I'm not a conservative, nor a liberal, nor a democrat, nor a republican... etc, etc.
I'm just eccentrically meshuganeh.
(although I'm probably closer to being a royalist like my hubby, in spite of being born in America. Long live the Queen and all that, but not so sure how much I trust Prince Charles.)
Yeah -- wars aren't really "invisible" -- just that the majority of folks don't live with their eyes open.
Oh and Happy Hanukkah!!
(Started tonight!)
=^..^=
Would there be a seventh war if Saudi Arabia got involved by backing the Sunni insurgency?
no the saudis will just be involving themselves in a war thats allready going on however if they were to do this then they might end up fighting america politically, economically, and actually in Iraq, but for the rest of the world they'd probably still be best buds.
Happy Hanukkah to you to, i will just point out that you did a good job in saying that there's no evidence to suggest that kerry is belzers hero [allthough they might have just been being funny when they said that] and that he was no friend to the clinton whitehouse.
Merci Beaucoup...
Reni.
Oh and I replied to your new comment on my post "Comedienne Trashed..." and all that.
=^..^=
Mary & Chris Moose.
Post a Comment