RE: The announcement by the Obama Administration that it will give "aid" to the Syrian rebels currently fighting the regime of Dictator-for-Life Bashir Al-Assad.
I seem to recall an old saying that goes something like this:
When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt him.
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Friday, June 14, 2013
Friday, October 26, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
On Bayonets and Horses...
RE: The Obama debate line about bayonets and horses, and the implication that both are useless on the modern battlefield:
A Bayonet charge in Basra, Iraq, in May of 2004 saw 20 British Troops defeat 100 Iraqi insurgents.
In Afghanistan, U.S. Special Forces are working closely with Afghan Horse Cavalry, and beating the snot out of the Taliban
One wonders how it is that a Commander-in-Chief can be so ignorant of actual events on the battlefield..Then again, he seems ignorant of events being filmed by a fucking UAV, as they happen, in a place -- Benghazi -- that's supposed to have been 'pacified' by Obama's divine decree.
But, hey...it was a great zinger to use on Romney, right?
By the way, these examples took me all of thirty seconds to find using Google. Obama has an entire National Security and Intelligence apparatus, not to mention a Military that reports directly to him, at his disposal, and he still doesn't seem to know jack shit.
A Bayonet charge in Basra, Iraq, in May of 2004 saw 20 British Troops defeat 100 Iraqi insurgents.
In Afghanistan, U.S. Special Forces are working closely with Afghan Horse Cavalry, and beating the snot out of the Taliban
One wonders how it is that a Commander-in-Chief can be so ignorant of actual events on the battlefield..Then again, he seems ignorant of events being filmed by a fucking UAV, as they happen, in a place -- Benghazi -- that's supposed to have been 'pacified' by Obama's divine decree.
But, hey...it was a great zinger to use on Romney, right?
By the way, these examples took me all of thirty seconds to find using Google. Obama has an entire National Security and Intelligence apparatus, not to mention a Military that reports directly to him, at his disposal, and he still doesn't seem to know jack shit.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Can We Still Win Wars?
This is the question posed by Professor Hanson. The answer: of course we can.
We just have to decide to really fight them first.
We just have to decide to really fight them first.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
On Shooting Afghans...
Apropos of the recent news of an American soldier allegedly murdering 16 Afghans, I say this:
Give that sick motherfucker a chestful of medals, and turn him into the next Patton.
If you're going to have a War on Terrorism at all, it should, one thinks, behoove you to be out killing the people who will, eventually, be performing said acts of Terorrism. After all, every Afghan is just one missed shipment of Islamically-approved, American-taxpayer-provided, dog-food-grade canned goods away from joining the Taliban, anyway.
Give that sick motherfucker a chestful of medals, and turn him into the next Patton.
If you're going to have a War on Terrorism at all, it should, one thinks, behoove you to be out killing the people who will, eventually, be performing said acts of Terorrism. After all, every Afghan is just one missed shipment of Islamically-approved, American-taxpayer-provided, dog-food-grade canned goods away from joining the Taliban, anyway.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Five Myths About Women in Combat...
More feminist douchebaggery from yet another woman who probably can't get promoted to the upper echelons of command because she doesn't have a Combat Infantry Badge.
Here's the solution, just don't ever expect to see it happen because it a) makes sense, and b) the spectacular failure that would follow would pit a stake through the rhetorical heart of yet one more feminist ideal, that there are no appreciable difference amongst the sexes. Feminism, as a political movement must, in order to merely survive logical scrutiny, insist that some things are indisputably true which simply aren't, while simultaneously arguing both for and against the very solutions that would put those ideals to the test.
It's a passive-aggressive thing: I insist this must be true, but don't you dare ever test my idea, just in case I'm wrong. The really important thing is that the argument continues for it's own sake.
Create an entirely female combat unit. Give it the best equipment, training, support and officers available, and then send it into combat against the enemy.
If you did that, either of the following things would soon become crystal clear:
a) Female infantrypersons can perform just as well as their male counterparts, defeating their enemies decisively at the point of engagement with superior weapons, tactics and effort, or
b) The body bags will start coming back in greater numbers...only with extra bumps in them. And a brand new crop of excuses for failure will bloom.
Otherwise, this argument is entirely academic and serves no useful purpose.
And by the way, anything that is championed by Rep. Loretta Sanchez is probably bad for everyone involved, except Loretta Sanchez. That woman is dizzier than the pet Yorkie that you spend your afternoons bashing over the head with a rubber hammer. I've seen her on television numerous times talking out of both sides of her mouth and her rectum simultaneously, and I'm convinced that she's a leading candidate for one of those great big red crash helmets you see all the kids on the Short Bus wearing.
Here's the solution, just don't ever expect to see it happen because it a) makes sense, and b) the spectacular failure that would follow would pit a stake through the rhetorical heart of yet one more feminist ideal, that there are no appreciable difference amongst the sexes. Feminism, as a political movement must, in order to merely survive logical scrutiny, insist that some things are indisputably true which simply aren't, while simultaneously arguing both for and against the very solutions that would put those ideals to the test.
It's a passive-aggressive thing: I insist this must be true, but don't you dare ever test my idea, just in case I'm wrong. The really important thing is that the argument continues for it's own sake.
Create an entirely female combat unit. Give it the best equipment, training, support and officers available, and then send it into combat against the enemy.
If you did that, either of the following things would soon become crystal clear:
a) Female infantrypersons can perform just as well as their male counterparts, defeating their enemies decisively at the point of engagement with superior weapons, tactics and effort, or
b) The body bags will start coming back in greater numbers...only with extra bumps in them. And a brand new crop of excuses for failure will bloom.
Otherwise, this argument is entirely academic and serves no useful purpose.
And by the way, anything that is championed by Rep. Loretta Sanchez is probably bad for everyone involved, except Loretta Sanchez. That woman is dizzier than the pet Yorkie that you spend your afternoons bashing over the head with a rubber hammer. I've seen her on television numerous times talking out of both sides of her mouth and her rectum simultaneously, and I'm convinced that she's a leading candidate for one of those great big red crash helmets you see all the kids on the Short Bus wearing.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Gets Through the Senate...
Via Althouse.
Expect to see this headline very soon:
"Army Medic Court Martialled: Refused to Treat Fallen Comrade He Believed Had AIDS."
Should happen any day now.
It all reminds me of these classic Monty Python Sketches:
The Recruitment Office.
Court Martial/Trivializing the War.
Ooops! I forgot this one!
Expect to see this headline very soon:
"Army Medic Court Martialled: Refused to Treat Fallen Comrade He Believed Had AIDS."
Should happen any day now.
It all reminds me of these classic Monty Python Sketches:
The Recruitment Office.
Court Martial/Trivializing the War.
Ooops! I forgot this one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)