Wars never go "very well," honey, if your in one. Your "Poll's" as usual are
bull *****. Only REAL American soldiers can have opinions on wars, not you
coffee house, college spoiled brat liberals.

Nevertheless, your doped up little spoiled brat hippies don''t do us a hell
of a lot of good as a country with your smart assed little email bull *****.

"Eltanin" <eltanin@boxfrog.com> wrote in message
news:030920031832228054%eltanin@boxfrog.com...

'What The Hell Did You
Think Was Gonna Happen?'
By Gary Brecher
war_nerd@exile.ru
9-2-3

I can't believe you people.

First you jump around like Alabama cheerleaders for a war in Iraq, then
you turn chickensh*t once we lose a few soldiers in the occupation.

I just read the new polls. Americans are losing their war hard-ons
faster than a fag in a whorehouse. At the start of May 2003, 61% said
the war was going "very well." Now only 19% say that. Back in May, only
4% said the war was going "not well." Now 35% think so.

You make me sick.
What the Hell did you think was gonna happen? The Iraqis were gonna
fall in love with an occupying army? "Oh thank you for blowing up our
power plants and water supply! Allah be praised, now we have
democracy!"

We were so sure the Iraqis would rise up once we landed. That's one
feature you'll find in every bad military plan ever devised: "and then
the people will rise up." That was how Bay of Pigs was supposed to go:
"We'll land a few hundred men, and then the Cubans will rise up." Which
they didn't, naturally. Every time a lieutenant in some African
hellhole talks a half dozen of his barrack drinking buddies into
staging a coup he uses the same line: "and then the people will rise up
to help us." Cut to him and his friends hanging from the nearest
lamppost.

The Iraqis rose all right. But not against Saddam, against us. They got
a lot more upset about foreign troops in the streets than they ever did
about not having "democracy." When did Iraqis ever give a ***** about
democracy? All they know is the air conditioning doesn't work, they
have to get their water off the back of a truck, and some scared GI
manning the .50 on a humvee just blew half the shacks in the village to
kingdom come because he mistook a garden rake for an RPG tube.

That's how occupations go. That's what it's like. It ain't pretty, it
ain't good TV, and it takes a long time to make it work.

I tried to tell you it wasn't going to be the "cakewalk" the DC
chickenhawks were crowing about, but all you did was send me emails
gloating about how easy the march to Baghdad turned out to be. Well, I
never said that was going to be the hard part. When you're fighting
tank battles in open country like we were then, you can use your air
force at maximum efficiency, and we've got the best air force in the
world.

But once you take the cities, it's a whole different war. I guess none
of you thought it through long enough to figure out you can't use your
air force when you're occupying enemy cities. You just belched up a
beer-cheer while the gun-camera pix were on the evening news-and now
that the occupation's getting rough, you want out.

Truth is, this occupation isn't going that badly. We're losing a man a
day, more or less. That's not bad. That's just the way these things go.
The British used to lose a few dozen men a day when they ran the world.


Hell, when they tried to take Afghanistan they lost a whole army. But
they didn't lose their nerve and start sobbing to the pollsters. They
knew it takes blood to run an empire. Even when their wars went bad,
like the Boer War-and that was about as bad as it can get-they stuck
with it, kept pouring in men and materiel and won. Along the way they
had to do some grim stuff. Like concentration camps. Hell yes-you think
Hitler invented the concentration camp? Shows how much you know.

Concentration camps were invented by the British for the Boer War.

If you want to know what kind of coldblooded hardass discipline it
takes to run an empire, the Boer War is a good place to start. The
Boers, mostly Dutch and French, settled in South Africa way back in the
1600s. The British showed up later and took the prime coastal land from
them. The Boers fought and lost a big battle in 1842, then just moved
inland to get away from the British. For a while the British left them
alone. Then gold was discovered on Boer land and the Limeys suddenly
decided they needed to bring the blessings of empire to those poor
lonely Boers. So they invaded in 1899. They thought that one was going
to be a cakewalk too. The Boers were farmers, not soldiers. But the
Boers were marksmen and they knew the ground. Even though they could
only field about 50,000 men against 500,000 British troops, they were
winning.

The Brits didn't lose their nerve. Lord Kitchener, commanding the
British forces, took a coldblooded look at the situation and realized
that the Brits faced the classic problem in counter-insurgency: the
Boer women and kids were acting as spies and supply line for the Boer
guerrillas. So the Brits rounded up all the Boer women, kids, and old
folks, and put them behind barbed wire in the middle of nowhere, the
first concentration camps. Of course with thousands of civilians jammed
into a few tents-open latrines, no running water, no doctors-every
disease in Africa hit the Boer women and kids. 40,000 of them died.

The British weren't fazed at all. They realized the camps were winning
the guerrilla war for them. Every time a family died in the camps, the
news got back to a Boer guerrilla hunkered down in the bush-no more
wife, no more kids, all died horribly in a camp while he was off
playing soldier. Some of the guerrillas went crazy, some killed
themselves, and the rest started thinkin' real hard about whether it
was worth it. In the long run, reason prevailed, as the saying goes.
The Boers surrendered after three years.

We wiped out the Indians' civilian population the same way, for the
same reason: we wanted the land and we were willing to do what it took
to get it. "Massacres" like Wounded Knee weren't accidents, they were
just standard guerrilla war tactics: you kill the civilian population
that supports the guerrillas. Mao said guerrillas swim in the civilian
population like fish in water. So you drain the lake.

Maybe you think that's too mean or something. Well, you shoulda thought
of that before you let a half-dozen talkradio morons and a
draftdodger-in-chief talk you into taking over every city in Iraq.

Maybe now you can appreciate how coldblooded and smart our strategy in
Gulf War I was. Every chickenhawk on the air was moaning about how Bush
Sr. and Colin Powell let Saddam get away in '91, how we shoulda gone in
and taken Baghdad. Still think so? Let's see Michael Savage stand on a
streetcorner in Fallujah sweating in a kevlar vest, jumping every time
a car turns the corner. Let's see Bill O'Reilly do night patrol through
Baghdad in a Humvee. In '91 we did it the way the Brits would've:
neutralized the threat, then left and let Saddam try to pick up the
mess. Sure we betrayed the Kurds and the Shiites along the way. That's
what empires do. The most basic tactic for running an empire is using
Tribe A against Tribe B: Kurds vs. Sunni, Sunni vs. Shiite, village vs.
village. If one gets too strong you bleed it for a while. Then you let
it bleed the others. After a while they're all bled out and your
imperial troops are the only force in the country worth mentioning.

What the Brits would be doing about now is arming the Kurds and sending
them to police the Sunni Triangle. The Kurds have already asked us to
let them do it. They're begging for the chance to get a little payback.
They said, "We guarantee we'll have the place pacified in a week. We
can read these people! You can't! We can tell who's a guerrilla and who
isn't! All we need is a few fingernail-pulling pliers and a portable
generator hooked up to a cattle prod or two!"

Of course we won't let them, because it'd be messy, like Sabra-Shattila
times ten. There'd be dead Sunnis thicker than sagebrush. But the
Brits'd do it, and it'd work. Then, when the Kurds had bled the Sunnis
out, they'd recruit a new police force, all Sunni and all-volunteer, to
go police Kurdistan, bleed the Kurds for a while so they don't get too
strong.

That's the sort of thing you have to do if you want to run an empire.
But you guys, you're just brave enough to get us into trouble and not
brave enough to see it through. You want to kick *****, plant the flag on
somebody else's land and blow stuff up, and then have everybody on the
ground love you for it.

That's not an empire. That's a bedtime story for pussies.

http://exile.ru/172/172062003.html

Wars never go "very well," honey, if your in one. Your "Poll's" as usual are
bull *****. Only REAL American soldiers can have opinions on wars, not you
coffee house, college spoiled brat liberals.

Nevertheless, your doped up little spoiled brat hippies don''t do us a hell
of a lot of good as a country with your smart assed little email bull *****.
"Eltanin" <eltanin@boxfrog.com> wrote in message
news:030920031832228054%eltanin@boxfrog.com...

'What The Hell Did You
Think Was Gonna Happen?'
By Gary Brecher
war_nerd@exile.ru
9-2-3

I can't believe you people.

First you jump around like Alabama cheerleaders for a war in Iraq, then
you turn chickensh*t once we lose a few soldiers in the occupation.

I just read the new polls. Americans are losing their war hard-ons
faster than a fag in a whorehouse. At the start of May 2003, 61% said
the war was going "very well." Now only 19% say that. Back in May, only
4% said the war was going "not well." Now 35% think so.

You make me sick.
What the Hell did you think was gonna happen? The Iraqis were gonna
fall in love with an occupying army? "Oh thank you for blowing up our
power plants and water supply! Allah be praised, now we have
democracy!"

We were so sure the Iraqis would rise up once we landed. That's one
feature you'll find in every bad military plan ever devised: "and then
the people will rise up." That was how Bay of Pigs was supposed to go:
"We'll land a few hundred men, and then the Cubans will rise up." Which
they didn't, naturally. Every time a lieutenant in some African
hellhole talks a half dozen of his barrack drinking buddies into
staging a coup he uses the same line: "and then the people will rise up
to help us." Cut to him and his friends hanging from the nearest
lamppost.

The Iraqis rose all right. But not against Saddam, against us. They got
a lot more upset about foreign troops in the streets than they ever did
about not having "democracy." When did Iraqis ever give a ***** about
democracy? All they know is the air conditioning doesn't work, they
have to get their water off the back of a truck, and some scared GI
manning the .50 on a humvee just blew half the shacks in the village to
kingdom come because he mistook a garden rake for an RPG tube.

That's how occupations go. That's what it's like. It ain't pretty, it
ain't good TV, and it takes a long time to make it work.

I tried to tell you it wasn't going to be the "cakewalk" the DC
chickenhawks were crowing about, but all you did was send me emails
gloating about how easy the march to Baghdad turned out to be. Well, I
never said that was going to be the hard part. When you're fighting
tank battles in open country like we were then, you can use your air
force at maximum efficiency, and we've got the best air force in the
world.

But once you take the cities, it's a whole different war. I guess none
of you thought it through long enough to figure out you can't use your
air force when you're occupying enemy cities. You just belched up a
beer-cheer while the gun-camera pix were on the evening news-and now
that the occupation's getting rough, you want out.

Truth is, this occupation isn't going that badly. We're losing a man a
day, more or less. That's not bad. That's just the way these things go.
The British used to lose a few dozen men a day when they ran the world.


Hell, when they tried to take Afghanistan they lost a whole army. But
they didn't lose their nerve and start sobbing to the pollsters. They
knew it takes blood to run an empire. Even when their wars went bad,
like the Boer War-and that was about as bad as it can get-they stuck
with it, kept pouring in men and materiel and won. Along the way they
had to do some grim stuff. Like concentration camps. Hell yes-you think
Hitler invented the concentration camp? Shows how much you know.

Concentration camps were invented by the British for the Boer War.

If you want to know what kind of coldblooded hardass discipline it
takes to run an empire, the Boer War is a good place to start. The
Boers, mostly Dutch and French, settled in South Africa way back in the
1600s. The British showed up later and took the prime coastal land from
them. The Boers fought and lost a big battle in 1842, then just moved
inland to get away from the British. For a while the British left them
alone. Then gold was discovered on Boer land and the Limeys suddenly
decided they needed to bring the blessings of empire to those poor
lonely Boers. So they invaded in 1899. They thought that one was going
to be a cakewalk too. The Boers were farmers, not soldiers. But the
Boers were marksmen and they knew the ground. Even though they could
only field about 50,000 men against 500,000 British troops, they were
winning.

The Brits didn't lose their nerve. Lord Kitchener, commanding the
British forces, took a coldblooded look at the situation and realized
that the Brits faced the classic problem in counter-insurgency: the
Boer women and kids were acting as spies and supply line for the Boer
guerrillas. So the Brits rounded up all the Boer women, kids, and old
folks, and put them behind barbed wire in the middle of nowhere, the
first concentration camps. Of course with thousands of civilians jammed
into a few tents-open latrines, no running water, no doctors-every
disease in Africa hit the Boer women and kids. 40,000 of them died.

The British weren't fazed at all. They realized the camps were winning
the guerrilla war for them. Every time a family died in the camps, the
news got back to a Boer guerrilla hunkered down in the bush-no more
wife, no more kids, all died horribly in a camp while he was off
playing soldier. Some of the guerrillas went crazy, some killed
themselves, and the rest started thinkin' real hard about whether it
was worth it. In the long run, reason prevailed, as the saying goes.
The Boers surrendered after three years.

We wiped out the Indians' civilian population the same way, for the
same reason: we wanted the land and we were willing to do what it took
to get it. "Massacres" like Wounded Knee weren't accidents, they were
just standard guerrilla war tactics: you kill the civilian population
that supports the guerrillas. Mao said guerrillas swim in the civilian
population like fish in water. So you drain the lake.

Maybe you think that's too mean or something. Well, you shoulda thought
of that before you let a half-dozen talkradio morons and a
draftdodger-in-chief talk you into taking over every city in Iraq.

Maybe now you can appreciate how coldblooded and smart our strategy in
Gulf War I was. Every chickenhawk on the air was moaning about how Bush
Sr. and Colin Powell let Saddam get away in '91, how we shoulda gone in
and taken Baghdad. Still think so? Let's see Michael Savage stand on a
streetcorner in Fallujah sweating in a kevlar vest, jumping every time
a car turns the corner. Let's see Bill O'Reilly do night patrol through
Baghdad in a Humvee. In '91 we did it the way the Brits would've:
neutralized the threat, then left and let Saddam try to pick up the
mess. Sure we betrayed the Kurds and the Shiites along the way. That's
what empires do. The most basic tactic for running an empire is using
Tribe A against Tribe B: Kurds vs. Sunni, Sunni vs. Shiite, village vs.
village. If one gets too strong you bleed it for a while. Then you let
it bleed the others. After a while they're all bled out and your
imperial troops are the only force in the country worth mentioning.

What the Brits would be doing about now is arming the Kurds and sending
them to police the Sunni Triangle. The Kurds have already asked us to
let them do it. They're begging for the chance to get a little payback.
They said, "We guarantee we'll have the place pacified in a week. We
can read these people! You can't! We can tell who's a guerrilla and who
isn't! All we need is a few fingernail-pulling pliers and a portable
generator hooked up to a cattle prod or two!"

Of course we won't let them, because it'd be messy, like Sabra-Shattila
times ten. There'd be dead Sunnis thicker than sagebrush. But the
Brits'd do it, and it'd work. Then, when the Kurds had bled the Sunnis
out, they'd recruit a new police force, all Sunni and all-volunteer, to
go police Kurdistan, bleed the Kurds for a while so they don't get too
strong.

That's the sort of thing you have to do if you want to run an empire.
But you guys, you're just brave enough to get us into trouble and not
brave enough to see it through. You want to kick *****, plant the flag on
somebody else's land and blow stuff up, and then have everybody on the
ground love you for it.

That's not an empire. That's a bedtime story for pussies.

http://exile.ru/172/172062003.html

Wars never go "very well," honey, if your in one. Your "Poll's" as usual are
bull *****. Only REAL American soldiers can have opinions on wars, not you
coffee house, college spoiled brat liberals.

Nevertheless, your doped up little spoiled brat hippies don''t do us a hell
of a lot of good as a country with your smart assed little email bull *****.

"Eltanin" <eltanin@boxfrog.com> wrote in message
news:030920031832228054%eltanin@boxfrog.com...

'What The Hell Did You
Think Was Gonna Happen?'
By Gary Brecher
war_nerd@exile.ru
9-2-3

I can't believe you people.

First you jump around like Alabama cheerleaders for a war in Iraq, then
you turn chickensh*t once we lose a few soldiers in the occupation.

I just read the new polls. Americans are losing their war hard-ons
faster than a fag in a whorehouse. At the start of May 2003, 61% said
the war was going "very well." Now only 19% say that. Back in May, only
4% said the war was going "not well." Now 35% think so.

You make me sick.
What the Hell did you think was gonna happen? The Iraqis were gonna
fall in love with an occupying army? "Oh thank you for blowing up our
power plants and water supply! Allah be praised, now we have
democracy!"

We were so sure the Iraqis would rise up once we landed. That's one
feature you'll find in every bad military plan ever devised: "and then
the people will rise up." That was how Bay of Pigs was supposed to go:
"We'll land a few hundred men, and then the Cubans will rise up." Which
they didn't, naturally. Every time a lieutenant in some African
hellhole talks a half dozen of his barrack drinking buddies into
staging a coup he uses the same line: "and then the people will rise up
to help us." Cut to him and his friends hanging from the nearest
lamppost.

The Iraqis rose all right. But not against Saddam, against us. They got
a lot more upset about foreign troops in the streets than they ever did
about not having "democracy." When did Iraqis ever give a ***** about
democracy? All they know is the air conditioning doesn't work, they
have to get their water off the back of a truck, and some scared GI
manning the .50 on a humvee just blew half the shacks in the village to
kingdom come because he mistook a garden rake for an RPG tube.

That's how occupations go. That's what it's like. It ain't pretty, it
ain't good TV, and it takes a long time to make it work.

I tried to tell you it wasn't going to be the "cakewalk" the DC
chickenhawks were crowing about, but all you did was send me emails
gloating about how easy the march to Baghdad turned out to be. Well, I
never said that was going to be the hard part. When you're fighting
tank battles in open country like we were then, you can use your air
force at maximum efficiency, and we've got the best air force in the
world.

But once you take the cities, it's a whole different war. I guess none
of you thought it through long enough to figure out you can't use your
air force when you're occupying enemy cities. You just belched up a
beer-cheer while the gun-camera pix were on the evening news-and now
that the occupation's getting rough, you want out.

Truth is, this occupation isn't going that badly. We're losing a man a
day, more or less. That's not bad. That's just the way these things go.
The British used to lose a few dozen men a day when they ran the world.


Hell, when they tried to take Afghanistan they lost a whole army. But
they didn't lose their nerve and start sobbing to the pollsters. They
knew it takes blood to run an empire. Even when their wars went bad,
like the Boer War-and that was about as bad as it can get-they stuck
with it, kept pouring in men and materiel and won. Along the way they
had to do some grim stuff. Like concentration camps. Hell yes-you think
Hitler invented the concentration camp? Shows how much you know.

Concentration camps were invented by the British for the Boer War.

If you want to know what kind of coldblooded hardass discipline it
takes to run an empire, the Boer War is a good place to start. The
Boers, mostly Dutch and French, settled in South Africa way back in the
1600s. The British showed up later and took the prime coastal land from
them. The Boers fought and lost a big battle in 1842, then just moved
inland to get away from the British. For a while the British left them
alone. Then gold was discovered on Boer land and the Limeys suddenly
decided they needed to bring the blessings of empire to those poor
lonely Boers. So they invaded in 1899. They thought that one was going
to be a cakewalk too. The Boers were farmers, not soldiers. But the
Boers were marksmen and they knew the ground. Even though they could
only field about 50,000 men against 500,000 British troops, they were
winning.

The Brits didn't lose their nerve. Lord Kitchener, commanding the
British forces, took a coldblooded look at the situation and realized
that the Brits faced the classic problem in counter-insurgency: the
Boer women and kids were acting as spies and supply line for the Boer
guerrillas. So the Brits rounded up all the Boer women, kids, and old
folks, and put them behind barbed wire in the middle of nowhere, the
first concentration camps. Of course with thousands of civilians jammed
into a few tents-open latrines, no running water, no doctors-every
disease in Africa hit the Boer women and kids. 40,000 of them died.

The British weren't fazed at all. They realized the camps were winning
the guerrilla war for them. Every time a family died in the camps, the
news got back to a Boer guerrilla hunkered down in the bush-no more
wife, no more kids, all died horribly in a camp while he was off
playing soldier. Some of the guerrillas went crazy, some killed
themselves, and the rest started thinkin' real hard about whether it
was worth it. In the long run, reason prevailed, as the saying goes.
The Boers surrendered after three years.

We wiped out the Indians' civilian population the same way, for the
same reason: we wanted the land and we were willing to do what it took
to get it. "Massacres" like Wounded Knee weren't accidents, they were
just standard guerrilla war tactics: you kill the civilian population
that supports the guerrillas. Mao said guerrillas swim in the civilian
population like fish in water. So you drain the lake.

Maybe you think that's too mean or something. Well, you shoulda thought
of that before you let a half-dozen talkradio morons and a
draftdodger-in-chief talk you into taking over every city in Iraq.

Maybe now you can appreciate how coldblooded and smart our strategy in
Gulf War I was. Every chickenhawk on the air was moaning about how Bush
Sr. and Colin Powell let Saddam get away in '91, how we shoulda gone in
and taken Baghdad. Still think so? Let's see Michael Savage stand on a
streetcorner in Fallujah sweating in a kevlar vest, jumping every time
a car turns the corner. Let's see Bill O'Reilly do night patrol through
Baghdad in a Humvee. In '91 we did it the way the Brits would've:
neutralized the threat, then left and let Saddam try to pick up the
mess. Sure we betrayed the Kurds and the Shiites along the way. That's
what empires do. The most basic tactic for running an empire is using
Tribe A against Tribe B: Kurds vs. Sunni, Sunni vs. Shiite, village vs.
village. If one gets too strong you bleed it for a while. Then you let
it bleed the others. After a while they're all bled out and your
imperial troops are the only force in the country worth mentioning.

What the Brits would be doing about now is arming the Kurds and sending
them to police the Sunni Triangle. The Kurds have already asked us to
let them do it. They're begging for the chance to get a little payback.
They said, "We guarantee we'll have the place pacified in a week. We
can read these people! You can't! We can tell who's a guerrilla and who
isn't! All we need is a few fingernail-pulling pliers and a portable
generator hooked up to a cattle prod or two!"

Of course we won't let them, because it'd be messy, like Sabra-Shattila
times ten. There'd be dead Sunnis thicker than sagebrush. But the
Brits'd do it, and it'd work. Then, when the Kurds had bled the Sunnis
out, they'd recruit a new police force, all Sunni and all-volunteer, to
go police Kurdistan, bleed the Kurds for a while so they don't get too
strong.

That's the sort of thing you have to do if you want to run an empire.
But you guys, you're just brave enough to get us into trouble and not
brave enough to see it through. You want to kick *****, plant the flag on
somebody else's land and blow stuff up, and then have everybody on the
ground love you for it.

That's not an empire. That's a bedtime story for pussies.

http://exile.ru/172/172062003.html