« Bush/Carlson Interview Bleg | Main | On Character And "Character" »

The Clash Explains It All

Here's one for our friends in the desertion-prone Iraqi National Guard.

"Lost In The Imam Ali Shrine"

I'm all lost in the Imam Ali Shrine
I can no longer shoot happily
I came in here for Iyad Allawi
He guaranteed security

I wasn't born so much as I fell out
Nobody seemed to notice me
We had a hedge back home in al-Basra
Over which I never could see

I heard the people who lived on the ceiling
Scream and fight most scarily
Hearing that noise was my first ever feeling
That's how it's been all around me

I'm all lost in the Imam Ali Shrine
I can no longer shoot happily
I came in here for Iyad Allawi
He guaranteed security

I'm all lost

August 16, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8346377a769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Clash Explains It All:

Comments

Not much different from Democrats of recent past running away from combat. Salute to the Iraqis who choose to fight for liberty.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 6:49:55 PM

And a big salute to GW Bush for valiantly defending Texas from the Vietcong while that wimp Kerry was cruising Vietnam in his pleasure yacht, faking injuries and filming future campaign commercials.

Posted by: epistemology | Aug 16, 2004 6:59:38 PM

Vietnam ended 30 years ago. Ironic that the Dems denied fighting it for 30 years and now claim to own it.

You can have it.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:19:35 PM

Well, you can have Iraq, Mr. Warthog. Fair deal?

Posted by: Ben P | Aug 16, 2004 7:24:30 PM

I'll take it. Iraq will be a success story.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:25:12 PM

What can I say? You can keep deluding yourself if you like.

IMO, this has done as much damage to the US's world standing as the Vietnam War for all kinds of reasons. The only question is whether the damage will be minimal or catastrophic. Iraq might have a functional democracy with legitimacy, but I wouldn't bet for another several decades. Indeed, the US's invasion has probably pushed the process back.

You also probably thought Bush was going to carry 45 states 6 months ago, too . . .

Posted by: Ben P | Aug 16, 2004 7:32:18 PM

Warthog is dead right - Iraq WILL be a success story. It just won't be a success story for the USA.

Posted by: Cameron | Aug 16, 2004 7:39:04 PM

I wish I had the archives for your chorus of negativity that preceded the military engagements in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The mythical-Afghan-warrior-undefeated-in-300-years, and American-won't-fight-in-cities memes still bring belly laughs.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:43:40 PM

Not much different from Democrats of recent past running away from combat. Salute to the Iraqis who choose to fight for liberty.

Would those be the ones fighting for the unpopular, foreign imposed, unelected regime led by an ex-Ba'athist thug and terrorist, or the ones fighting against that regime?

Posted by: cmdicely | Aug 16, 2004 7:45:49 PM

That depends which side your on. Where do you stand?

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:49:06 PM

Warthog, the Bush administration is loaded with cowards, from Cheney and Bush on down. Why do you hate America, you cowardly little moron?

Posted by: Michael | Aug 16, 2004 7:49:15 PM

"Just a quick word: For those who consider that the Majority is too silent and too passive, what do you say about the National Conference that is going on now? More than 1000 delegates from all over the country representing almost everybody with the exception of two fringe groups with highly dubious credentials (Al -Sadr & the Association of Muslim Scholars) - men and women from every walk of life challenging the terrorists and meeting in broad daylight at a well-known location. Sure they tried to lob one or two mortar shells but does that intimidate the people? What better demonstration of the will and determination of the Iraqi people to forge ahead with the political process towards the democratic free society that we are all dreaming of?"

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_messopotamian_archive.html#109251090824364686

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:51:48 PM

You're losing it Michael. Civility too big a challenge?

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:52:21 PM

I was just listening to London Calling today. Freaky.

Posted by: Sinclair Beckstein | Aug 16, 2004 7:54:11 PM

1) "but also in the old Saddam Hussein strongholds north and west of the capital"

Bullshit. In Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra they ain't fighting for ole Saddam no more. Or the Baathist party. They are Sunnis. I have heard that Saddam never really controlled Fallujah.

2) There was a line in a Juan Cole piece this weekend that the Cleric militias, like Badr Brigade, were formed(87 or 92) in order to defend the Shiites from Saddam's police and paramilitary. I went, say what? How much control has Saddam had for the last ten years.

3) It didn't have to be this way. I remember feeling great when the talk was about Sistani's first choice, that nuclear engineer who had been in prison(Name=shrug) becoming President. He looked terrific. But the IGC(Bremer,Cheney?) vetoed him and we got Allawi.

4) The problem I am having is that I know there are people in Iraq who want something like what I want in Iraq. Allawi and Sadr aren't among them, but Sistani,Zeyad,Riverbend,Fayyad have hopes. Bush has consistently screwed them. Bush's brainless evil is not a reason to abandon those people. They are the good ones.

5) But Matt's little song got to me. The people of Vietnam haven't had a great life after we left and the war ended. But they have had a life. The problem is that Iraq is not Vietnam, and I still can't say they would be better off if we left.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 16, 2004 7:54:43 PM

and I still can't say they would be better off if we left.

Iranian/Syrian proxies would eat them up. But not many on the left seem to care very much about that.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 7:59:23 PM

Hold on a second. Is Warthog implying Bush didn't run away from combat?

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Aug 16, 2004 8:09:44 PM

Last I checked George W. Bush, Commander in Chief, led his troops in two wars of liberation which removed the yoke of totalitarin regimes from 50 million human beings. What have you or Mr. Kerry done lately?

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 8:15:17 PM

Neo-neoconism Preempted!

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 16, 2004 8:23:28 PM

Last I checked, George W. Bush still had his daddy pull strings for him so he wouldn't have to serve in Vietnam and thus risk death or physical injury. Warthog is right, however, that Bush doesn't seem to have any compunction about sending other people to their death or physical injury. What a brave man!

Posted by: blah | Aug 16, 2004 8:24:04 PM

People who base their entire understanding of national security affairs, perhaps their entire existence, only in terms of mocking the sitting President of the United States suffer a debased and shallow intellectual life indeed.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 8:28:44 PM

Unlike those cowardly Democrats who run away from combat, here is what manly George W. Bush did during Vietnam:

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." -- [Bush] On why he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the
Vietnam War, 1990.” [Source: Houston Chronicle, 5/8/94]

http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/week_2004_04_25.php

Posted by: blah | Aug 16, 2004 8:34:26 PM

Yeeeesh, Warthog, even some of your fellow LGF trolls aren't willing to sip from the "messopotamian" blogger kool-aid...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12157_Alaa-_Basrah_is_in_Grave_Danger#comments

Posted by: Brad Reed | Aug 16, 2004 8:38:05 PM

The amazing part is that you have no clue how irrelevant and unimportant that stuff is.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 16, 2004 8:39:42 PM

When I used to post ALMOST as much as Warthog does, people suggested I had a mental problem. Let's pray that the iron-butt dude is getting paid to do this shit.

Matt, you can give him ownership of your comments, or you can start deleting him and let him start whining about free speech and how liberals aren't tolerant. Why should you be the sponsor of the warthog-debating-society? Warthog feels that you have that obligation, of course.

Posted by: Zizka | Aug 16, 2004 9:17:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.