To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. - Sun Tzu

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

An Intervention for Our Sanity

Duh, of course there's sporadic guerilla fighting in Iraq. Did we expect the Iraqis to just say, "Oh, come into our country like you own the place. Thanks for taking care of Saddam for us- here, have our daughters"??

Actually, I honestly believe that was the thought process of our 'president' and his 'advisors'. That is idiotic. Remember the last time we tried this sort of thing, in the Phillipines? We were there for decades, thousands dead, an unspeakable human tragedy. This is the single most incompotent leadership our country has ever had, and that list includes Grant, Hoover, and Carter (nice guy, bad president). And now roughly half of us want to give him another four years to screw things up?? Let's break things down:

Serious Threat to Americans 1: Bin Ladin.
Promise: Bush would catch him, bring him to justice.
Today: Bin who?

Serious Threat to Americans 2: The Economy and its In-Shambles-ness.
Promise: We'd all be living in paradise within the week.
Today: Gee, we're employed, but lookie that poverty level. It hasn't been that high in almost 75 years!

Outright Lie by Bush 1: Afghanistan is fine
Reality: The only place in the country that the 'official' Afghan government has control is in Kabul. The rest of the country is producing Opium

Outright Lie by Bush 2: Saddam Hussein is a threat.
Reality: Not only was he not a threat, but we went about invading in the most boneheaded way imaginable. The last military adventure to be so badly botched was Tuetobergenwald.

"The only thing that could've been more botched would be if America had landed on the moon using a rocket that only flew one way - with a crew of 130,000 astronauts who then killed 10,000 innocent moon men. We botched this motherfucker like botching was going out of syle. This thing was so fuckin' botched, I'm surprised the name of the war wasn't misspelled" (Rees, Get Your War On 7/04)

Bush is the most inept military commander in world history to be entrusted with this much power, and Rumsfeld is almost as bad. The second guy should have resigned. The first guy should be impeached for this level of botchitude. I mean, whatever you think of Kerry as a person, AT LEAST HE WON'T SEND US INTO TWO UNWINNABLE, OPEN-ENDED CONFLICTS DURING A RECESSION.

This is not raving! THIS IS COMMON SENSE!!!

3 Comments:

Blogger The Mad Tech said...

Wow, I find myself in agreement with you on certain points. I do agree that Kerry will not as you put it, "SEND US INTO TWO UNWINNABLE, OPEN-ENDED CONFLICTS DURING A RECESSION." Ok, now that being said, what have you seen in Kerry that makes you think he won't up and change his mind again if he is elected and decide that the "global test" he speaks of does actually include UN approval of our potential troop deployments? I think that if anything, Kerry may actually stick to his "global test" and let us drift toward isolatism which we know from World War II is a failed policy. The worse thing that could happen is that we disengage from the world stage and China, Russia and God forbid the European Union step in to fill the void.

12:46 AM, October 07, 2004

 
Blogger M Women said...

That is very true. I like your use of the word "botchitude." :P

4:30 PM, October 07, 2004

 
Blogger RanDomino said...

Clearly, you're an intelligent person, and that's refreshing in a medium where almost everyone is a raving moonbat. I find it interesting that so many people can manage to use a computer well enough to make a website, yet can't form a well-reasoned opinion based on history and evidence.

First, you implied that Kerry is a 'flip-flopper' by saying "...what have you seen in Kerry that makes you think he won't up and change his mind again if he is elected...". That is a baseless charge. When one of the most rabid conservative blogs, John Hawkins' rightwingnews, made specific points about exactly when Kerry has changed his mind, they all came down to one thing: Kerry voted for the war, and now he is against it.
To be honest, voting for the war was a purely political move, but his excuse is that he only voted to *authorize* an invasion if diplomacy failed, and diplomacy would be futile without the *threat* of force.

The 'global test' is mostly a meaningless buzzword that Kerry probably wants to take back. The fact is, however, that, in polls, roughly 75% of the world's population was opposed to the invasion. That in itself is also a mostly meaningless statistic, but what it means is that our image in the world took a hit when we did invade. In a war of ideas, it is counterproductive to look like imperialist, looting, Crusaders.

"The worse thing that could happen is that we disengage from the world stage and China, Russia and God forbid the European Union step in to fill the void."
I, regrettably, dismiss this sort of jabber. It is useless. In this world, where the philosophy is to make the most people as happy as possible via economic growth, belligerence and villification have no place.

I prefer to deal with more specific policy- not to the detail of on-the-ground tactics (such as 'how should we go about taking Cityville?'), but certainly not as vague as 'good', 'evil', and 'freedom'. Those are never more than just words.

5:57 PM, October 07, 2004

 

Post a Comment

<< Home