Life is advancing on me at all fronts. The only recourse is phalanx.
I just watched the premier of Commander-in-Chief. That show is a joke. The subject of the show isn't two guys, a girl, and a pizza place. It's the Oval Office. The intellectual capital of this solar system. How many people told me I would like this show? Do none of you see the difference between this and Aaron Sorkin's work? What about between Kelly Clarkson and Rachmaninoff? Pat Buchannon and John Calvin? James Frey and David Hume?
Within 5 minutes of her presidency, the first First Lady has already egregiously violated the God-given sovereignty of another nation in favor of Western ideals. Cited empathy. You would be sickened by the courses of action a similar breed of "empathy" toward these United States by a great many of our foreign counterparts might prescribe. We are, however, presently in a position to divert these tendencies. Ironically, these empathetic tendencies of ours will play the jester who strips us of that robe of protection. Think UN, seventy five years down the road.
Who am I kidding? It's inevitable. Just give me the high ground and a bunch of rocks.
Perhaps I've grown a little cynical. I still love my country. What it should be. After careful consideration, I've decided I would be willing to bear the burden of national office for my countrymen... I do not propose to serve them directly. I may be the first politician in several centuries to say that. I will serve God, and as His mandate, myself. By preserving my right and theirs to do so freely, I stand for every man, woman, and child born, sworn, or carried into this great nation.
I stand ready to serve at your call. The unspoken truth, of course, is that you won't call.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Within 5 minutes of her presidency, the first First Lady has already egregiously violated the God-given sovereignty of another nation in favor of Western ideals."
he he he he he
All's I'm gonna say to ya is: "George W. Bush". :)
The desire to retaliate against bloodbath regimes playing government with terrorists isn't really an exclusively Western ideal.
Invading a sovereignty over a disagreement with that nation's handling of domestic laws with its own citizens: as a general rule, if it's not clearly genocide, we stay the hell out.
How would we like it if England invaded us for executing Clarence Ray Allen because he's old?
No, anonymous, as compelling an argument as "George W. Bush" is, I'm afraid it doesn't hold up. No predicate you could addend post hoc would relate to what I'm talking about.
C'est la vie.
Well, "GWB" IS, in fact, a rather compelling argument. After all, one word or phrase communicates sometimes as well, or better than, an entire dissertation. Yes? :)
And really, Adam, for me to post the entire thought bubble that went along with my previous statement would have entailed more gigs than I can fathom. LOL
That said...on to the real "argument": We often do NOT "stay the hell out". Do your research, and you will find many instances of the good ole US of A sticking their noses in where they flat out do NOT belong.
AND...who are we to say what another nation should or should not do, whether it is genocide, excessive taxation, letting gays marry (or not), dying your hair blue, or anything else? It is NONE of our business unless we are attacked. Notice I said "unless we are attacked". I did NOT say that if we're attacked AFTER we pick a fight or stick our very long and "uppity" noses into another nation's business. IMO, we are only justified if we are attacked. Which makes very FEW of the wars in US history justifiable, nor almost any of the conflicts and odd little bits we have managed to "butt into" over the course of our nation's short life.
Prove to me that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Prove it to me. Not circumstantial evidence. Not conjecture. PROVE it to me. Irrefutably. THEN...I will concede that perhaps GW had the right idea.
One of your biggest blind spots is that you believe the rhetoric, Adam, and very often your brain gets turned off when some conservative pundit speaks eloquently to what you wanted to believe anyway. You're too damn good for that. So DON'T believe them automatically (YES...you DO). Make them PROVE it to you.
You have a beautiful mind, my friend. And as you say on the homepage of this blog: You better, by God, use it!!! Which means, as PART of you is already aware: NO ONE'S IDEAS ARE BETTER THAN YOURS. So...why just hit the "I believe button" when it comes to things of such great import????
Now that I have completely given you my identity (not that you didn't have it anyway), I will say also that everything I have said here, I have said out of love. And also....DAMN you for making me write a freakin' dissertation anyway! LOL
Are you kidding me? Of all the people in the world you might try to accuse of "believing the rhetoric", you chose the wrong one. I am an engineer of rhetoric. I sleep rhetoric. Nobody is putting a fast one over on me here. What we've actually got is a classic case of disagreement. I can irrefutably prove to you that Iraq is related to the events of September 11th, as have a number of our nation's leaders on several occasions, but you don't care. I've never said Iraq had anything to do with crashing planes on US soil. I've also never believed that the United States must be attacked on domestic soil to engage enemies overseas. That's where we disagree.
I state this as a matter of principal, not as a defense against any specific conflicts the US has been involved with before I was born or shortly thereafter. In about a year, I'll be studying political science again and I assure you I'll educate myself enough on the subject to write your dissertation, but for now, I'll plead ignorance and concede possession to you.
As for the matter of genocide, I think you'll have a hard time rounding up enough libertarian gusto to hold back the world in the face of ethnic annhilation. No civilization I'd want to be a part of would stand for that. If this civilization decided to get into the habit of doing so, I'd consider it a severe threat to national security and start declaring war. Fortunately, we've got (not my) beloved UN General Assembly and their Genocide Convention telling us we ARE responsible for the prevention of the most egregious crime ever perpetrated on humanity. I do agree that we shouldn't attempt to westernize sovereign nations in any way, unless by "westernize" you mean "prevent from mass-murdering Jews, Shi'ites, Kurds, or the Swiss".
So, you'll probably be wanting that proof now. There's a difference of terms that's preventing you from having seen it already. You want proof that Iraq, that is, the government of Iraq, was in some direct way responsible for an assault on the United States. What I would suggest to you is that that's not the case, but it's STILL possible that the war in Iraq is related to 9/11. How, you ask? Well, Timmy, What happened after the Revolutionary War to the British Red Coats? What happened after the frontiersmen were confronted with their first taste of guerilla warfare by the indians? What happened after the Civil War when the old ironsides wrought havoc on coastal towns and harbors? What happened after World War I when fighter jets took to the skies? After the first atomic bombs were detonated in Nagosaki and Hiroshima in World War II? What happened after Vietnam and the US military's horendous experience with jungle warfare? Bosnia, Kosovo, and Saudi Arabia.... tanks fighting in the desert. Mountain warfare in Afghanistan? Urban warfare in Iraq?
Each one of these conflicts presented new challenges to the United States and, in turn, the world, in terms of the way wars are fought. New technology and new battle models arose from each conflict in response to the specific challenges posed. The attacks on September 11, 2001, the largest international attack in recorded history to be carried out by a transnational entity, immediately changed the world's model of war and global conflict. I'm not going to try to get into the logistical details of crippling a multinational cell network of terrorists who have an unclear, difficult to map chain of command and the benefit of a world-wide communication network at their disposal. Let's just leave it at this: The United States and its allies (and I'd wager some of its enemies, or at least neutral acquaintences) have decided that a reactive stance on terrorism and national defense is inadequate in the face of a rising threat. If G. W.'s rhetoric didn't spell it out for you, allow me. Nations of the world, beware. Do not oppress your people with the brutality of government by force. Do not contract out violent authority to radical militant groups. You are creating a breeding culture for inhuman acts of terror which you cannot contain. Take heed and straighten up, lest you wake up surrounded by the full force and effect of the most powerful military presence the world has ever seen, boot to your throat. We've seen where your game will take us, and we aren't playing anymore.
Proactive defense. That's my proof that Iraq and 9/11 are related. Iran and North Korea are next. Quit bleeding tears and get used to the idea. Or there's always the alternative. We can play it your way, put on our diplomatic courtesy face and try to get everyone to like us. Mind our own business, as you say. But the next time civilian blood is shed between these shores by militant radicals bred to hatred by dictatorial regimes, I'm declaring war on YOU.
PS - I'm halfway through the 9/11 Commission Report. What did you think of it?
Don't ever be fooled into thinking I agree with someone because I like how he sounds. I like how he sounds because he agrees with me. You grok?
Post a Comment