This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 16, 2004 1:03 PM. The previous post in this blog was Menu change. The next post in this blog is Get out there. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

"Operation Mountain Storm"

I'm a hawk, but Bush & Crew make me want to puke sometimes. All of a sudden, it's time for the big push to get you-know-whose head on a silver platter.

It wasn't important enough last year.

It wasn't important enough the year before that.

But for some reason, it sure is important this year.

"Operation Change the Subject from the Economy" is more like it.

Comments (19)

Maybe the true definition of "outsourcing" is sending more troops overseas.

Sure it's an election year ploy. So what? It's not like the Democrats aren't pulling out all the stops on electioneering. For _practical_ purposes of the WoT, whether Osama is alive but hiding or smeared on a cave wall somewhere is mostly irrelevant. Having him in custody beside Hussein would be a great photo op, though.

Not that it matters, I suspect, because the professional Bush-haters will still gibber and hoot no matter what.

It ceases being 'just an election year ploy' and starts to matter when someone you know and love is right there in the thick of things.

Especially when our troops (and their loved ones) consider the 'irrelevant' fact (yet fairly prevalent rumor over there) that the guy is already dead.

Mark Jones for Dummies
1. Repubs are manipulating 9/11. So what?
2. Dems do it too.
3. It doesn't matter.
4. Will make a nice picture.
5. It doesn't matter.
6. Dem partisans will make silly vocalizations requardless.

I hope you get your legs blown off by an IUD, Mark. So what? It doesn't matter.

I hope you get your legs blown off by an IUD, Mark.

You, sir or madam, are banned.

Wow. I saw the death penalty post but had no idea I was the target of the out-of-bounds comments. I've certainly endured worse on usenet, though.

My own two cents on war:

Making war for peace is like having sex for virginity.

Karstan--why? You can desire peace all you like, but if faced with a hostile opponent, your choices can boil down to surrender (and enslavement or death, quite possibly) or war. It may take two violent parties to fight a war, but it only takes one to engage in a massacre.

Further to Mark Jones' comment:

"Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way."

link via Instapundit at:

Can't you be pro-America and anti-war? And who said that France was anti-America? Parisians aside, they like us for the most part. Canadians, too. They just don't like our bullying attitude internationally (something that's gotten much worse under our current pretender, I mean president.) And I'd like to know when the last time someone seriously threatened to invade our country, hmmm? Iraq was no threat to us, yet we invade in the name of "peace." How many innocent Iraqis have we slaughtered? The government says that there's no way to count. How many of our servicemen have died needlessly? I think the last count was closing in on 600.

As Albert Einstein put it: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Sure you can be pro-America and anti-war. It's just that most of the anti-war crowd I've heard from for the last two years aren't. They compare a regime that fed its opponents into woodchippers to an American administration that--shock! horror!--didn't deal with said thugocracy in a UN-approved fashion (i.e., ineffectually) and conclude that the US government is the greater evil. France and Germany aren't the only nations that don't like our "bullying" attitude, but so what? A nation which demands a veto over when and where and how--and if--its ally is permitted to strike at its enemies and their enablers isn't much of an ally.

Albert Einstein was a smart man, I suppose, but on that point he was dead wrong. Sometimes the best way--maybe the only way--to prevent a war is to make it clear to the enemy (or "potential enemy", if you prefer) that you are both willing and able to kick his ass if he starts something. Which means preparing for war in order to avoid war. We spent the last couple of decades convincing the world that we _weren't_ willing, and our reward was 9/11. Now we're forced to reestablish our bona fides as an actual threat, not a paper tiger. It would be nice if that hadn't been necessary, but "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Iraq may have been a thugocracy, but it posed no threat to our security, unlike proven terrorist-supporters Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We struck at the wrong enemy. The U.S. has done irreversible damage to the United Nations as an institution by attacking a sovereign nation without Security Counsel authority. Why should Iran and North Korea not follow our lead, and attack us? They have more rational reason to suspect the U.S. is an imminent threat to them than the U.S. had to suspect Iraq. What was "ineffectual" about containing Saddam Hussein with inspections? Inspections worked. The chemical weapons Rumseld sold Saddam in the '80's are now evaporated, and Iraq accounted for everything else. Attacking them was insane, and will come back to haunt us.

9/11 was our reward for bullying too much over the past century, starting with TR invading the Phillipines. Don't worry, Mark Jones, people in South America, Vietnam, and Afghanistan know we're not a paper tiger when we kill and maim their children with bombs and bullets. Becoming a bigger bully is not the answer.

There is nothing pro-American about blindly insisting on America's invincibility.

I'm not going try to explain why I support our actions in Iraq; it's much too complicated to go into here. No, Iraq wasn't about to launch Scuds at us, but that was never the reason anyhow. You don't defeat terrorists by playing defense, though.

Any "irreversible damage" to the UN was self-inflicted; the US has nothing apologize for.

"I'm not going try to explain why I support our actions in Iraq; it's much too complicated to go into here."

I take that to mean you have no rational explanation for your support, but rather see the U.S. as your team, the world as the football field, and the Arabs as our opponent. That is how Osama bin Laden and the Jihadists see the world too. Way to have team spirit, guys! Problem is, there's no clock to run out and no official to declare victory or "defeat." The terrorists want us to "play offense" because it kills innocent Arabs (i.e. "collateral damage"), and turns their grief-stricken relatives into eager anti-U.S. terrorist recruits.

"No, Iraq wasn't about to launch Scuds at us, but that was never the reason anyhow."

What other sane reason for launching a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country could there possibly be? Team spirit, I guess, even though Iraqis were not on Al-Qaeda's team a year ago. They sure are now, though.

The more innocent Arabs we kill, the more terrorists we create.

I said, "I'm not going try to explain why I support our actions in Iraq; it's much too complicated to go into here."

To which you replied, "I take that to mean you have no rational explanation for your support..."

You can reinterpret it to suit your prejudices if you like, but I meant exactly what I said. It's too complicated to go into in someone else's blog comments section. Besides, it's clear from your response that you're an ass who cannot conceive that reasonable people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion regarding causes, effects and appropriate responses. Anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or evil, or both. So I'm done arguing with you.

And I note that you haven't addressed the merits of my argument, but rather called me "an ass" and mischaracterized my argument as calling you "stupid" or "evil," words I did not use. I can conceive of you coming to a different conclusion from me, but your refusal to explain how you came to your conclusion makes me the winner of this "argument" by default.

Mark, let's say I go take boxing lessons and hit the gym every day and bulk up a lot. Now, with this new expertise, I go stalking around making it very clear that could kick anybody's ass. Not going out of my way to PICK fights, but still making it clear that I'm confident in my ability to win a fight. Do you REALLY think someone's not gonna take me up on that unspoken challenge? That I'll somehow avoid a fight? Sure, I might WIN that fight when I get into it... but the point is, the fight has still occurred.

Now, let's say instead, that I spend that time working on my conflict resolution skills. And instead of walking around trying to show everyone that I could "kick their ass" if I wanted, I just acted friendly and non-threatening. How many fights do you think I'll get in then? Hmmm?

Like Sam said, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a DIRECT result of our bullying postures and actions in the past.

Like you could bulk up, Karstan. Stop the bandying, or else I'll give you a P-Town Beat Down. I hope you get an IUD stuck up your one eyed trouser snake.

I don't know who you are, anonymous heckler, but doubt not my bulking abilities... my trim figure is only due to years and years of endurance running.

Clicky Web Analytics