Long Serious Post (I hope it doesn't become lame..)

Isn't that just typical...?

Here I am preparing to go home in about an hour's time, thinking that I got nothing to write about, when my cousin called. Their office at Jln. Dogan got broken into and they lost all their CPUs. Five CPUs, that's about RM15,000, including one belonging to a customer. How the hell is he going to explain that one...

The weird thing was, my cousin that whoever broke into the place ignored all the other stuff (including some things more valuable) and went straight for the computers. I'm beginning to wonder if there's more to this break-in than meets the eye.

For the record, this wasn't the first time that company's lost things to thieves. And also, for the record I used to work there before I moved here to my present work.

My cousin, he's quick active in politics. He's quite well placed right now, and looks to be on his way up. He told me just now that he suspects that whoever took those PCs wanted to deny them use of the documents in those PCs (and yeah, some of them documents are top level confidential). Ahh yes, our very own conspiracy theory.

And talking about that, have you heard ? Some left wing terrorist appologists out there think that the Nick Berg vid is FAKE. Some people think that's some radical elements from the CIA or Mossad did it to divert attention from the Abu Ghraib incident. Or the whole thing was STAGED !! What a load of hogwash !!!

I'm particularly pissed off at the fact that there are people out there (including some Malaysians) who wish to diminish the painful, unnecessarily slow death of Nick Berg by politizing it. Saying things like the whole thing was a Jewish/ultra-Christian ploy to undermine the Islamic position in Iraq. Theories like these are nothing more than fantasies of the deluded. Some people are just idiots.

And while I'm on the subject of Iraq, I might as well write down my uncensored, unabridged opinions about the whole thing.

I am against the war in the first place. I did not see any justification for the invasion to have gone through. The "reasons" that the Bush administration was shaky at best and downright fictitious at worse.

The invasion itself was rushed and ill planned. First, the Coalition went in too light. Not enough men, not enough spares for vehicles, not enough ground work convincing local Iraqi dissidents to support them, heck not even enough ammo (trawl through some Yahoo news and some indie military websites from last year to read about the supply situation). The Coalition also had NO PLANS for government after winning. They should have formed an interim shadow government BEFORE they invaded, hence the necessary groundwork with local dissidents.

Tactically, until now the Americans have proven to be too heavy-handed, using weapons that are too heavy not to cause collateral damage. No matter how careful you are, you CANNOT expect a 2000 pound LGBU (Laser Guided Unit, a bomb) to not cause civilian casualties. Nor can I understand the use of the AC-130 Spectre gunship in a densely populated area like Fallujah. The damned thing has TWO 105mm cannons on board. Not to mention 40mm cannons. And miniguns (yes, plural) !!! That to take out a two man insurgent observation team on the roof of a building ? Overkill man. For urban combat, better to stick to (small) chopper gunships like Cobras, snipers & SMAW teams (rocket soldiers for you c&c fans).

Due to their heavy handedness and extravagant use of excessive force, the Coalition (especially the Americans, the Brits are better at handling insurgencies) indirectly cause more people to rise against them.

BUT, on the other hand, I'm extremely happy they got rid of Saddam Hussein. There's NOTHING good about this regime. Now regular Iraqis can do whatever they want. They can now hold protests against the Americans and demand for things out loud. This is great. Sure they're lots to improve but at least now they don't have to fear the government. If they tried this against Saddam's time, they'd be machine-gunned enmasse. Or gassed. Or taken to labor camps. In the sense of freedom, the war did what they advertised that it would. Now, regular Iraqi citizens are freer than they've ever been. The only problem is that I didn't like the way the US did it. They should've went covert, incited and then supported a popular uprising instead. I never like the use of regular army for this (toppling a dictatorship).


Should the US pull out ? Should the UN take over ? Yes & Yes. But not too soon. Leave too soon and create a power vacuum which the likes of Al-Qaeda or that upstart Al-Sadr can exploit. What do you get ? Civil war. Genocide for sure. Those people who helped the Americans during the occupation would be put to the sword. No matter how much of a left wing pacifist you are, think about this. America can't pull out until Iraq can defend itself. Alang-alang menyeluk pekasam...

The UN ? For me they can only be allowed to take over security IF AND ONLY IF, UN forces are authorised to intervene in localised conflict with FORCE and are allowed to conduct OFFENSIVE operations to root out rogues & terrorists. No use for them to be there if they can't guarantee security, much like they did (or is it didn't) in Bosnia. The problem with UN forces, they're usually tied down by idiotic rules-of-engagement that prevent them to be proactive. If they are given more dynamic combat parameters to play with in Iraq, I'm for it and I hope our 2nd Ranger Btn will go (I doubt it though). Those guys kick ass. If not, and they let local warlords have their way (like in Somalia, which until today STILL does not have a central government, this is what you get if you're too touchy feely in a warzone), don't bother.

For me the fact is that if there is no SECURITY in Iraq by the time they elect their own government, the Coalition should remain. Or if the UN is replacing then let it be with desiciveness and logical aims. Otherwise, Iraq will go the way of the Republic of South Vietnam and dissapear.

Wow that was long.