Boosh the Devil - Darfur
So Chavez calls Boosh the Devil. So what? He's Ahmadinejad's bum-buddy. Of course, Boosh is the Devil. I can't really get too excited about those two speaking at the UN at all. What they said was expected. It is too bad that they are allowed into the USA at all. I'd rather they have to give their address by video conference: no reason that assholes should be welcome here -- for that matter, as far as I am concerned, the UN isn't welcome here either. Let them pollute other shores and vistas.
Darfur. Another cesspit where a Muslim controlled government is doing its best to exterminate a different group of people. But here we have "Hollywood" decrying the Boosh administration's FAILURE to react. Hang on, we poop ourselves in anger at Iraq where a dictator was removed -- for WMD or being a murdering swine, take your pick -- and that is wrong. But where other murdering swine are doing their daily chores of slaughter and genocide, we need to go in for humanitarian reasons? Is it that because there are no real politico-economic reasons/benfits for going to Darfur that make it a pure and subject for our attentions? Is it that because Iraq has oil, therefore are reasons must have been impure? Or Bosnia was not necessary, but Sudanese intervention is -- or maybe because black people are dying and not European whites? Did you note that it was the Muslims that were being eliminated by the Serbs in Bosnia -- where we went in (Bill the Liberalgod Clinton, in charge), but that is convenienty forgotten by the Muslim radicals around the world?
If Iraq is not worthwhile, if saving the Kurds and Marsh people is irrelevant, then I cannot see how Darfur is worth a damn. Is it horrible? Yes. Should it stop? Yes. Should we go and stop it? Yes. But only if the country gets behind the notion of stopping this shit going on. That is, make Congress vote on it. Stand up there Boosh in front of a joint session and ask for a show of hands RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT. Make the cameras pan around to see who is for and who is against. Commit them. Then, if the vote is "yea," force them again to authorize the use of force as commander-chief- sees fit. If this is a "no" -- quite a possibility -- retake the vote of whether to go in or not, stating "I do not want to commit American troops to combat situations without the FULL support of the people. So do we go in or not?" Again pan the cameras.
My guess is that this would cause the Democrats to shit the bed. Caught in a political trap of their own creation. Because you could not rightly go after the administration for their failure to stop genocide if you were unwilling to provide US troops the tools to accomplish the mission?
In Iraq, we have rules of engagement that prevent us dealing with the all to frequent situations where raw force is necessary, irrespective of "collateral damage." If a sniper runs into building to hide we should be able to demolish the building. Soon enough, the people who live there will shoot the sniper to prevent him from entering and destroying their lives. That is what happened in Germany in 1945-1949. It worked. It is a simple message: you help the guy who shoots us, it is the same as if you had shot us yourself. At law in the US, if you drive the car of the guy who robs the 7-11 and shoots someon, you are liable for the shooting as if you had pulled the trigger yourself. True, in the US you go to prison. In war, you die -- which is only fair in that you and your co-conspirators are tyring to kill us.
The irony is terrific in that the US troops are there (at least now) trying to provide the shooters the right to determine who will govern them, and how they want to ... live.
Darfur. Another cesspit where a Muslim controlled government is doing its best to exterminate a different group of people. But here we have "Hollywood" decrying the Boosh administration's FAILURE to react. Hang on, we poop ourselves in anger at Iraq where a dictator was removed -- for WMD or being a murdering swine, take your pick -- and that is wrong. But where other murdering swine are doing their daily chores of slaughter and genocide, we need to go in for humanitarian reasons? Is it that because there are no real politico-economic reasons/benfits for going to Darfur that make it a pure and subject for our attentions? Is it that because Iraq has oil, therefore are reasons must have been impure? Or Bosnia was not necessary, but Sudanese intervention is -- or maybe because black people are dying and not European whites? Did you note that it was the Muslims that were being eliminated by the Serbs in Bosnia -- where we went in (Bill the Liberalgod Clinton, in charge), but that is convenienty forgotten by the Muslim radicals around the world?
If Iraq is not worthwhile, if saving the Kurds and Marsh people is irrelevant, then I cannot see how Darfur is worth a damn. Is it horrible? Yes. Should it stop? Yes. Should we go and stop it? Yes. But only if the country gets behind the notion of stopping this shit going on. That is, make Congress vote on it. Stand up there Boosh in front of a joint session and ask for a show of hands RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT. Make the cameras pan around to see who is for and who is against. Commit them. Then, if the vote is "yea," force them again to authorize the use of force as commander-chief- sees fit. If this is a "no" -- quite a possibility -- retake the vote of whether to go in or not, stating "I do not want to commit American troops to combat situations without the FULL support of the people. So do we go in or not?" Again pan the cameras.
My guess is that this would cause the Democrats to shit the bed. Caught in a political trap of their own creation. Because you could not rightly go after the administration for their failure to stop genocide if you were unwilling to provide US troops the tools to accomplish the mission?
In Iraq, we have rules of engagement that prevent us dealing with the all to frequent situations where raw force is necessary, irrespective of "collateral damage." If a sniper runs into building to hide we should be able to demolish the building. Soon enough, the people who live there will shoot the sniper to prevent him from entering and destroying their lives. That is what happened in Germany in 1945-1949. It worked. It is a simple message: you help the guy who shoots us, it is the same as if you had shot us yourself. At law in the US, if you drive the car of the guy who robs the 7-11 and shoots someon, you are liable for the shooting as if you had pulled the trigger yourself. True, in the US you go to prison. In war, you die -- which is only fair in that you and your co-conspirators are tyring to kill us.
The irony is terrific in that the US troops are there (at least now) trying to provide the shooters the right to determine who will govern them, and how they want to ... live.
posted by Zaphod at Thursday, September 21, 2006
1 Comments:
No, Bush isn't the Devil -- he's much too stupid to be the Devil. His Zionist puppeteers, on the other hand, are about as demonic as people come. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Shulsky, and all those other Zionist agents of Israel are the real "brains" behind the US war on Israel's enemies. They're willing to fight to the last drop of American gentile blood to maintain Israeli dominance in the Middle East.
Post a Comment
<< Home