November 28, 2005 3:08PM MDT Back from a nice relaxing vacation at Copper Mtn. with the boys (not to mention the dog). I think I've decided that downhill skiing isn't really my favorite sport, but snowshoeing sure is up there on my list - I came in second in the resort's Gobbler Chase race on Saturday. Okay, competition wasn't exactly stiff, but it was a nice start... I also hit Eldora for my first shoe there this morning. I could've pushed it harder, but at least it's better than spending the same amount of time on a machine at the gym. November 23, 2005 9:47AM MDT
My, my, looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Time will tell who's the asshole, asshole. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:34:59 -0800 (PST) From: "Guy Goodge" goodgy25@yahoo.com Subject: re: Here's what needs to be done to resolve the situation in Iraq To: bill@wrhammons.com you should probably stick to running and toolin' around in your gas guzzlin S.U.V. instead of advising on military strategy. I've read some goofy blogs, but your rants are just the grandiosity and delusional fantasies of a spoiled little Napoleon with nothing better to do. Actually, here's an idea - go volunteer to invade Syria. sincerely, a faithless reader November 22, 2005 4:14PM MDT Here's what needs to be done to resolve the situation in Iraq: First, all talk of troop "withdrawals" or "reductions" needs to stop. It's a free country (last I checked) and every citizen is entitled to voice his or her opinion, but every time the words "withdrawal" or "reduction" or "drawdown" are uttered, the insurgents are only given that much more hope and encouragement to keep shooting and bombing away at our troops until those troops leave prematurely. How American forces came to be on Iraqi soil is irrelevant to the current conflict (and also irrelevant is whether the Bush administration "leaned forward" with the facts in making its case for war - the administration should have been punished at the polls for its leaning, and very well might have if it hadn't faced a candidate who had his own honesty issues). I say "current conflict" because the war we are fighting now is not the war we fought in March, 2003. Then we were fighting Saddam Hussein; Saddam has been defeated and we are now fighting Al Qaeda (which wants to kill as many Americans as possible with as much publicity as possible) and Sunnis (who simply want the Americans to leave as quickly as possible). Many Sunnis (but not all) will most likely continue to be drawn into the political process, but will also soon be disillusioned in 2006 with the political process as the Kurds and Shiites proceed with what they've been accused of planning: the creation of autonomous Kurdish and Shiite states which will retain their all-important oil revenues. These Sunnis will then re-join the Islamists who will have been fighting unabated all along, and attempt to seize as much of the former Iraq as possible from their Kurdish and Shiite neighbors. "Civil war" would be a misnomer, since Iraq, the artificial amalgamation of three provinces of the Ottoman Empire by British conquerors nearly a century ago, would no longer be a country at such point. The American solution would first involve an increase, rather than a decrease, in troop levels in the country. Strains already weighing on the American military could be alleviated by increasing incentives for members of the armed forces, or better yet, increasing the armed forces (i.e., imposing a draft). Hypothetically, of course (this plan of action has a snowball's chance in the desert of being implemented by the current administration), these increased American forces would first intimidate the insurgents into decreased attacks, then strangle them into submission. For the way to end the insurgency would be to invade Syria, which has left itself open to "regime change" with its support of terrorism and then its practice of terrorism in the form of the Hariri bombing. An occupation of Syria by American forces in the spring of 2006 would cut off the main lines of supply and reinforcement for the Iraqi insurgents. Then the imposition of a friendly Syrian government would set the stage for the elimination of the Sunni insurgency's raison d'etre: the Iraqi Sunnis would be asked in a referendum if they would like to break off from the rest of Iraq and join a Greater Syria. If they reject such a proposal, they embrace their future in Iraq, and if they accept it, they can begin the process of reconciliation with their Kurdish and Shiite neighbors. And a Greater Syria, contiguous with an Israel that would allow the transit of American forces, would be the ideal springboard for a defense of both Kurdistan and Shiite Iraq against the depredations of Iran. America should defend the Kurds as they continue down the road of self-determination (and should encourage Turkey to allow their Kurds the right of self-determination if the Turks desire continued American support for Turkey's EU membership); the creation of an independent Kurdistan and Shiite Iraq might tempt Iran to expand its "sphere of influence," and that would create the perfect opportunity for America to do what needs to be done, cost what it might in terms of blood and treasure: remove a regime that has the dangerously intertwined ambitions of acquiring nuclear weapons and wiping other states "off the map"... November 6, 2005 1:59PM MDT Just finished updating this "Bill's Blog" section of the site - basically just revamping the content already here and making it a little more searchable. It was nice to watch the NYC Marathon highlights, even if they only were the highlights. Just what I needed to motivate me for my weekly long run... |