The Eve of Destruction

I avoid politics like the plague. It gets too many otherwise lovely people upset, and it turns otherwise mature people into schoolchildren (“No, YOU’RE a doo-doo head!”). But, since it looks like tomorrow or some time this week we’ll be doing the unthinkable – attacking a country that has not attacked us, which has an army the size of the Maine state militia and an air force smaller than the crop dusting fleets of some large farming conglomerates – I just wanted to make sure I have it straight:

  • We are attacking a country, defying the will of the U.N., in order to show the world that you can’t defy the will of the U.N.
  • We are attacking a country, ignoring the will of the people, in order to get rid of a dictator that ignores the will of his people.
  • We are attacking a country that has been penned in for 12 years and shows no sign of going anywhere in order to free its people from oppression – the same people that were gassed (with weapons we provided) by a madman we installed as ruler, while we just shook our heads, chuckled, and said, “Oh, that nutty Saddam…”
  • We are attacking a country in order to promote democracy – except that democracy in Iraq would mean Iranian-minded people would rule Iraq and Iran, so scratch that plan.
  • We are attacking a country using weapons of mass destruction (I’d like to see ones that are not) in order to rid them of their weapons of mass destruction – weapons we have proof that they have but can’t seem to find – while other countries brag about having them and profess the will to use them.
  • We are attacking a country for colluding with terrorists by employing the aid of the very countries from which terrorists struck American soil.
  • We are attacking a country in order to eliminate terrorism by giving terrorist organizations a new cause to rally around.

Yeah, I know: “You dumb Idiotarian. We’re going in for freedom and justice and to make America safe. Can’t you see that?”

Well… actually… no.

This entry was posted in Rants 'n' Whines. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The Eve of Destruction

  1. Scott says:

    Nor me.

    Prediction, based on conversations with civilians who have been involved in military scenarios: Wednesday->Thursday (night time). Moon begins waning, giving periods of dark.

    Looks like you’ll win the $10 from Amazon, Solonor.

  2. Scott says:

    By military scenarios, I mean they’re folks who design military simulations for the Pentagon. Back in the day, we called them “war games.” Things like Avalon Hill and SPI games. Three of the guys have done work for the Pentagon since Gulf War I (they predicted the walkover in detail), and I was speaking with/regarding them on Saturday.

  3. shelby says:

    You’ve got some very valid points there. Very valid. (And, I don’t think that you’re a doo-doo head.)

    But, in all honesty, I don’t think that there’s really a “right” answer, though one answer may be a little *more* “right” than the other. 😉

    As far as your first point, regarding us attacking a country, and defying the UN in so doing, just to show the world that you can’t defy the UN, I can only say that that’s hypocrisy.

    I’m unclear on the will of the people being ignored. There’s a lot of people out there who very much *do* want to go to war… and there’s a lot of people out there who *don’t* – so, I’m not sure which people you’re referring to, if you mean Americans, Iraqis, or the world as a whole. 🙂

    While we (the US) installed Saddam as the ruler of Iraq, it does not necessarily mean that he should be left in power, does it? Mistakes have been made by the US before – but, if something is indeed a mistake, shouldn’t steps be taken to correct the mistake?

    I personally don’t want to go to war, though I know I’m “arguing” your points. (Which I don’t really mean to argue, I just have questions.)

    This seems to me to be a situation that doesn’t have a clearly defined right or wrong answer. Both sides have very serious questions, and legitimate arguments.

    Doo-doo head. 😉 That’s funny.

  4. Solonor says:

    Shelby, I was just shaking my head in amazement that we’ve gotten this far.

    Of course, we have to attack now. We can’t put the might of the U.S. on someone’s doorstep and not use it. We’d be the laughingstock of the playground. The only way out of this is for Saddam to give up and leave (which I am still praying for). Even then, I’m not 100-percent sure that we wouldn’t invade “to preserve order”.

    As to the two points you argued about (you doo-doo head):

    The one about the will of the people was on both the level of global opinion (which, I know, we shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about – except that we have to live on the same globe with them) and a swipe at Bush’s “Father knows best” attitude that it doesn’t matter what protesters say, he’s in charge.

    The one about not caring about the Iraqis back when we were supplying Saddam is, in some respects, a specious one. We should clean up our own mess. In this case, it’s more of an illustrative point that the argument about us “going in to save poor Iraqis” doesn’t ring true with me.

    And never fear arguing with me. In case you hadn’t noticed, my blogroll is filled with doo-doo heads from both sides. I try not to judge the beauty of a person’s character on the basis of their political beliefs.

  5. Chari says:

    Great post! I actually was laughing (so I wouldn’t cry) while reading your points on our unprovoked soon-to-be attack. Again, that was great, well done!

  6. TECHFLUID says:

    Notable Quotables

    On recent trips around the Blogosphere, I’ve found some great posts and content regarding the impending unprovoked attack our nation

  7. GeekGrrl says:

    To each his own opinion, but I really think “Doody Head” is so much better. I mean, there really isn’t any comparision, in my mind. 😉

  8. sean says:

    In total agreement with the “doody head” comment. I also think “doody face” would be appropriate.

    I just don’t get why we’re going after a country that has neither the will, nor the desire, nor the capability to attack us, while we let an organization who has the will, desire, and capability to attack us, has done so in the past (killing thousands of people), and has professed to continue doing so for the forseeable future, run free and clear. Not only that, but we’d be helping them in their quest against the US in doing so.

    It all seems so incredibly stupid to me. But what do I know? I’m just a stupid voter.

  9. Scott says:

    But, didn’t you know that at least 51% of Americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I saw this on CNN today — and they were wondering why people felt this way.

    Could it be because they (CNN) have failed in their job to inform us properly?

  10. sean says:

    No, it’s because Bush constantly alludes to this fact in his soundbytes. If you dig deep enough though you’ll find him clearly saying that the two were not related at all:

    He says, essentially, “Lets never let September 11 happen again. Lets get the terrorists. Let’s get Sadaam.” Of course never mentioning that the two are entirely unrelated…

  11. Solonor’s confused about the coming war with Iraq.

    And I can’t blame him. As we stand on the brink of war that may be within hours of starting, Sol takes a moment to summarize and make sense of the logic behind the decisions The Shrub(TM) is making. We are attacking a country, defying the will of the U…

  12. kat says:

    Sol, you said that so much better than I ever could. So all of us doo doo heads can sit together . 🙂

  13. Ric The Schmuck says:

    Sol, we’ve been calling each other doo-doo heads for so long, we can’t (and/or shouldn’t) stop now!
    I’m not going into this to start an argument, but I’m not too worried about what the rest of the world thinks, as most all of them dislike us for one reason or another anyway. They’ll still be there with their hands out in times of (their)crisis, but they will profess their hatred or dissatisfaction with us undaunted. We need to stay our course (whatever course we, the US decides upon), hopefully with the approval and/or cooperation of the other nations of the world, but not letting the lack thereof dictate our actions. Or something like that. 🙂
    And I know that the situations aren’t the same, but there are enough similarities to pause and consider… The League of Nations (especially France!) didn’t want to do anything militarily in the late 1930’s to stop and/or slow down a villian in their midst. After all, he hadn’t actually used any of those weapons or his military yet, right? 🙂
    Not necessarily the same, all in all, but history should remind us of things before it’s too late, not after. Hopefully.
    I now recede to your regularly scheduled Schmucked-dom. Doo-doo head. 🙂

  14. Scott says:

    Comparing Hussein to Hitler in the 30s never works — Hitler bullied, cowed and invaded all of Europe by 1941.

    What’s Hussein conquered and held?

    I hate how the Right accuses those who are anti-war of being appeasers. I suggest they learn some history before continuing with their ad hominem attacks. Oh, wait, this is the Right, home of Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly. Never mind.

  15. Les says:

    Indeed. Had Hitler been as incompetent a ruler as Saddam is there never would have been a World War II. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare a bonfire to a wild fire.

  16. Ric The Schmuck says:

    I’m not trying to compare them, (nor am I a member of the Right) but there are enough similarities in the way the world is reacting that it gives me pause. That is all I’m saying.

  17. Scott says:

    Well, it’s not the world reacting, Ric — it’s a choreographed routine, courtesy of the neocons and their flunkies (read: warbloggers, for one group). Most of the world doesn’t see the parallels.

  18. Ric The Schmuck says:

    I gave up organized debate a long time ago, Scott, so I’ll not persue this any longer. You’d probably kick my butt at it anyhow. 🙂
    (My ability to express my thoughts in a coherent and intelligent fashion has left me, and this evenings beer intake wouldn’t help either.) Suffice it to say I don’t necessarily believe everything the media says about any situation, this one included. I don’t blindly follow the viewpoints from either side of the aisle, either.
    I just happen to believe that Mr.Hussien has been up to no good, and that he contibutes to world instability. Yes, the “terrorism” word. Do I want us to be involved in a war? No. Do I believe that this is the only way to achieve the desired ends? Not necessarily. But dammit, the people making these decisions have a lot more information than I have available to me. Or you.
    And despite how we have become used to getting “full disclosure”, or think that we actually know all of the evidence, or the details of what actually goes on in that country, you don’t, nor do I. So at some point we have to make a leap of faith. Or at least I have to. I don’t have to agree with everything that my countries government does, but by God I’ll support it, as long as I choose to live here and enjoy the privlidges that living here brings me. Yes, do support change in leadership if you don’t agree with our govenrments direction. That is what democracy is all about. Ask an Iraqi if he’d like to have that ability…..
    Do take care, Scott, keep thinking, and keep expressing. And hopefully continue to enjoy this fine country of ours. For all of it’s faults.

  19. Cool points.

    I refuse to write any more about politics in this blog… but I didn’t say I wouldn’t link to it…

  20. So Much to Say…

    With the start of the war against Iraq, I have so much that I want to say, but it all

Comments are closed.