Tuesday, February 07, 2006

THE FOG OF NO WAR

AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR. IT IS A MYTH THAT WE ARE.
YES, WE HAVE OUR MILITARY IN IRAQ AND PEOPLE ARE DYING DAILY; BOTH, AMERICANS AND IRAQIS. BUT IT IS NOT A WAR. IT IS AN ELECTIVE. IT'S POLITICS WITH HELMETS.
IF THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO END THIS ESCAPADE, IT COULD BE OVER AS QUICKLY AS IT WOULD TAKE OUR MILITARY TO DEPART FROM IRAQ.

THE WAR ON TERROR IS AMERICA'S RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO WISH, PLOT, AND ACT TO HARM US. THOSE PEOPLE PROBABLY ALWAYS EXISTED AND QUITE LIKELY ALWAYS WILL. THUS, THE WAR ON TERROR WILL NEVER BE OVER. AT BEST, IT WILL BE MINIMIZED AND CONTAINED.
OUR IRAQ INVASION AND OCCUPATION HAS BEEN A RECRUITING TOOL FOR THEM.

BUT, THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ. THE ADMINISTRATION IS MERELY STRUGGLING TO SAVE FACE BY DOING A FACE LIFT ON AN UGLY AND ILLEGAL INVASION AND OCCUPATION.

THE ADMINISTRATION SUGGESTS THAT SOME AMERICANS SECRETLY HOPE FOR FAILURE IN IRAQ. PERHAPS.
BUT DOES THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE SOME SECRETS OF THEIR OWN? DO THEY SEE 9-11 AS THEIR GOOD FORTUNE? DO THEY STILL YEARN TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO JUSTIFY THEIR DEADLY POLICIES?

19 comments:

ThePoliticalImpaler.blogs.com said...

I agree, we can end the terror tomorrow and for all time, if we treat the rest of the Middle East the same as Israel. OBL said 9/11 was a payback for Israel. Terror will never end as long as politicans treat Israel
like our 51st state. If we institute a level playing field there,the only thing America “will have to fear
is fear itself.”

MilesDavis said...

Boy, is'nt it refreshing to hear people quote AND believe the words of Osama Bin Ladin! I wonder if the above "Impaler" really believes the atrocity on 9/11 is due to the fact that Israel is an ally of the U.S. and not because Islamic Fundamentalism or the U.S connection to the Saudi Royal family and our lust for oil in the region has something to do with why we are hated. European countries who have not been as friendly to Israel in the past are experiencing that an incredible problem exists in their countries. For years, these countries have allowed uncontrolled imigration of a group that has no interest at all in assimilation and in fact is antagonistic to their host countries. (Check out the violence in Holland, France and most recently Denmark). Back to the "Impaler's comments.... it's very easy for the closet Anti-Semite to use any halfbaked reason to attack U.S. and Israels relationship. You see it's not politically correct to allow their Anti-semitic beliefs to expose them as what they are. So... they blame a nation....only the size of New Jersey for the trouble that we find ourselves in now. Anyone who puts any stock in the words or deeds of Osama Bin Ladin, in my book,is at best a fool, and at worst a good old fashioned jew hater!

MilesDavis said...

An after thought... After winning a stunning election, Israel was asked if they could work with the "New Leadership". They replied that they could, if that leadership repudiated terrorism and accepted Israel's right to exist. What was the Hamas reply?... No way!

Anonymous said...

You may want to look up the word "War" in the dictionary.

quicksand said...

NOPE, I WON'T PLAY THE DICTIONARY GAME.
I STAND BY MY OPINION. WE ARE NOT AT WAR IN IRAQ.

Anonymous said...

You're retarded. I saw a picture of an Iranian, holding a sign that said "Europe take some lessons from 9/11" I say we give the whole mid-east a lesson from Hiroshima! THAT is the only way to end the war.

quicksand said...

I'M SURE THAT I DO APPEAR RETARDED TO YOU.

hans blix said...

I'm sure I'm the most retarded one here and say that whether we call it war or something else, there is no choice but to stay. We may not like it, we may not have liked the original reasons for going, but what do we do when the Americans leave? Have Iraq run by insurgents who have little interest in respecting the international law that everyone was invoking three years ago? And what about Iran? Do we just sit around and let Iran build nuclear weapons? A country whose leader denies the Holocaust and says Israel must be wiped from the map? Regardless of what we might feel about the Israeli settlements and occupation, if we accept that it is a member of the international community, then we need to stand by the international law that we invoked to condemn the American invasion of Iraq. My point is that the world got very messy when the Berlin Wall came down and we don't have a way to fix it other than bashing a lot of very bad people over the head. If we all saw how sausages we're made, we'd never eat them. I'm more worried about the war that the Bushies have waged on the American people. Heck, Cheney has even resorted to shooting a few.

quicksand said...

THE PROBLEM IS ROOTED IN ALL THE SAUSAGES WE'VE BEEN MAKING.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO STAND BY INTERNATIONAL LAW, ALL OF THEM...OR JUST THE ONES THAT SUIT US AND OUR FRIENDS?
I VOTE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW........NO EXCEPTIONS.

hans blix said...

But what do we do when we have a regime like the Taliban that stones women for wanting to learn how to read? International law says we don't do anything. International law also said we were not to interfere in Ruanda. The world needs law but it also needs force and if the Europeans are reluctant to ever use force, then that means the Americans have to stand alone. This does not justify the war in Iraq. But what do we do about Iran? Hope that the regime will respect international law when it doesn't do so now?

quicksand said...

EDUCATE ME HERE. I ASSUMED THAT INTERNATIONAL LAW PERMITS THE COUNTRIES OF OUR WORLD TO STOP BRUTAL AGGRESSION, AND SADISTIC OR CRUEL ACTIONS.
WE BEHAVED CORRECTLY WITH THE TALIBAN. THEY WERE HOUSING THE VERY ORGANIZATION THAT ATTACKED US ON 9/11. THE WORLD WAS GENERALLY WITH US.
IRAQ WAS NOT ENGAGED IN BEHAVIOR THAT CALLED FOR AN INVASION. THE WORLD WAS GENERALLY AGAINST US.

IRAN WAS NAMED BY PRESIDENT BUSH AS A MEMBER OF THE AXIS OF EVIL...BEFORE 9/11.
THE OTHER TWO COUNTRIES WERE IRAQ AND NORTH KOREA. NORTH KOREA SEEMS TO HAVE THE BOMB, AND WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED IT. IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE THE BOMB....OR MUCH OF ANYTHING ELSE...AND WE INVADED IT.
SO, MR. BLIX, YOU BE IRAN...A COUNTRY WE HAVE A HISTORY WITH...A COUNTRY WHERE WE SET UP THE SHAH ( WHO WAS A BRUTAL 'LEADER' )
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
FINALLY, DOES AMERICA WANT...REALLY WANT... A NUCLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EAST?

Anonymous said...

If you honestly believe that Iraq was not engaged in behavior that called for an invasion then the discussion must stop right there.

People can look at a situation and see two different ways to respond. I understand and completely disagree with your position. The sanctions did not stop Saddam from selling oil. Who can say what would be happening now if he were still in power.

Saddam created his circumstances by manipulating the UN for over ten years. He played game after game after game. He gave Bush the excuse to do what I believe should have been done.

Did Bush want to go to war?? Yes
Did he think it was the right thing to do?? Yes

I agree.

Rue said...

So true! I think the "War on Terror" is poorly named. The vest any of us can do in the West is take a defensive pose against terrorists. Honestly, I think being in Iraq can only take the power away from Homeland Security. We need our soldiers here to protect us from airplanes highjacked into buildings!

Rue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rue said...

You're retarded. I saw a picture of an Iranian, holding a sign that said "Europe take some lessons from 9/11" I say we give the whole mid-east a lesson from Hiroshima! THAT is the only way to end the war."

HIROSHIMA!!?? That is just utterly sickening..How dare you..you asshole!...how about YOU volenteer to be in the middle east when the USA does it? Hmmm?? How about volenteering your children to join you? You sick bastard!!!..you're disgusting!! dry up and die somewhere you fucking freak!

quicksand said...

TO ANON,
YOU DISAGREE WITH ME...AND MOST OF THE WORLD.
SADDAM WAS PLAYING GAMES FOR TEN YEARS, THEREFORE, OUR KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS IS JUSTIFIED?
HAD WE NOT INVADED IRAQ, MY GUESS IS THAT SADDAM WOULD STILL BE SELLING OIL..............AND WE'D BE BUYING.
ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU'RE AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF U.N. RESOLUTIONS? ALL OF THEM?
THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS.

quicksand said...

ABOUT IRAN...........PLEASE REFER TO THE WRITER WHO SUGGESTS THAT WE NUKE THEM.
NOW, IF YOU'RE IRAN, YOU MAY JUST WANT TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THAT KIND OF THINKING.

hans blix said...

International law is not regular kind of law because it does not have the power to really sanction anyone. At least, it hasn't in any meaningful way (with a few exceptions). International law says that whatever happens within the border of a country is an internal matter and none of our business. If a leader wants to torture and kill his/her people, that is their business. There is a convention that says we can intervene in cases of genocide but that is used selectively. Apparently, Rwanda wasn't genocide but Kosovo was. It was wrong to call Clinton "slick Willie" for how he tried to avoid Ken Starr. We was more than slick in how he instructed everyone in his administration to never use the word genocide when talking about Rwanda.
We did not remove the Taliban because they were a bunch of neanderthals but because supposedly they helped OBL. My point is that the world should have done something two years earlier when they would beat people for listening to music ro reading books.
The question is whether we should intervene to oust brutal thugs like Saddam. I don't have any problems with that. If the Un is not going to do it, then I don't care who does as long as we get rid of the thugs.
Do I think these were Bush's motives? Not in the least. But the result is that Saddam is no longer in power. If we did the same in North Korea, I am sure the millions of people who have been living close to starvation for decades because they are led by a nutcase would appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP »