Classic Jon
I decided to take a nap instead of write. I'll probably write something later this afternoon, in between weight-lifting and girl-digging times, but since there's a chance that this aforementioned write might never happen, I've decided to post something I wrote almost two years ago.
I'm thinking that sound I just heard was anyone who actually reads this blog running away. Really, what I'm about to post isn't actually that bad. It's pretty coherent, as far as my early writing goes, and I do make some good points. At the time, Bush and Co(cronies) were still waving their dicks around about the Iraqi "threat." We still hadn't, at least publically, committed any troops to the ground war effort. Saddam was still in power, which meant that the mid-east had a semblance of peace, if Afghanistan were ignored.
Anyway, here's the article.
----------------
2-25-03
The Bush administration is busy pissing another line in the snow and the economy is on life-support after a failed organ transplant. Jobs are down, morale is down, War-Hawk woodies are up and so is the disgust of many people. I'm out of a job and am currently student teaching students whose biggest worry is whether or not that cute kid who sits down the row can see the pimple on their face. I envy them, almost. It must be nice to be pleasantly oblivious to the dirt that's caking the world.
Clinton may have been busy getting more action than I am, but I remember his administration being a bit happier. Saddam was a little bug, not an obnoxious noisemaker. Kim Jong was too busy watching bad porn and knocking boots with his high-school age pleasure women. France was doing what it does best - whining and making wine.
It's easy to blame everything on Bush. But, really, I don't think he has the intelligence to fuck up the country and the world. Rather, I think the blame should be placed on the shoulders of an aging administration that was built during the Cold War. While their tactics may have been effective back then (that alone, is questionable), I'm wondering if those same tactics can be applied to today's modern
world.
Granted, might may win every time, but might is extremely bad for business. We may have a trade deficit, but we do trade with other countries and if our big businesses can't make a few bucks off the French or the rest of Old Europe, they won't be very happy with us. War may be good for the arms-trade and the Arms industry, but everyone else suffers. If we sanction French goods, they can, in turn, sanction Coca-Cola, Nike, and other popular brands.
In the mean time, if you're planning on dumping your Dom Perignon down the drain, don't. I'll happily take it off your hands. Good Champagne is good Champagne, regardless of where it's from.
That's all besides the point.
A few weeks ago, my life-long friend told me he was preparing to ship out to Iraq. A. joined the Air Force last year, and I guess he's going to serve our country. While I may have been against the war because I don't support the administration's foreign policy, I am now against the war because I'm not exactly sure why my friend might lose his life. I don't think he, or any other soldier, belongs in Iraq.
Bush has been telling us that we're going to war because Saddam may, or may not, have weapons of mass destruction (WhaMmeD). If we don't blow Saddam out of the Middle East, we may be WhaMmeD by these weapons. I can understand preemptive strikes against a hostile country that has enough nerve gas to ruin our day, but I don't understand why we're targeting this particular hostile country. North Korea has a burgeoning nuclear program and Kim Jong isn't exactly the most stable of dictators. He seems willing to bomb us. Why aren't we invading North Korea? China also has WhaMmeD capacity. We aren't invading them either? I suspect that we won't invade China because China will most likely kick our American Asses. We may have superior weapons
technology, but China has a larger army. Also, American businesses probably won't like that we'd be alienating over one billion potential customers. So, why Iraq?
Some people have been telling me that the war against Iraq will be a boon to Iraqi people. We remove their dictator. They get a crack at American businesses and American democracies (will their politicians, too, be prone to PAC begging?), and American food. By leaving Saddam alone, we're leaving the Iraqi people to desolation and living hells. While the humanitarian argument has some merit, and I willingly support using military action to save millions of people from poverty and destitution, I'm still questioning if that argument is valid. If we're willing to invade Iraq to save the people, then why haven't we kicked ass in North Korea? The North Koreans are starving too and Kim Jong is too busy having forced sex with carefully picked high-school girls and watching bad movies to notice. China, too, oppresses their people. Many African countries are wracked by civil wars and leaders who plunder the country while their people suffer. Why aren't we invading all these countries too? I don't buy the humanitarian argument.
I'm also told that removing Saddam is a necessary move in the war against Terrorism. In fact, they claim, Saddam has been helping Osama. But, Osama hates Saddam's guts. Saddam is a secular leader in a relatively religious area. Osama would do anything to eject Saddam and replace him with a religious leader that is faithful to Islamic
extremists. In the last purported Osama tape; there are recorded lines that bash Saddam and his government. Why are we trying to link Saddam and al Queda. There's no reasonable way they can be related. There may be some Iraqi members in al Queda. There are also Saudi members in al Queda, but we aren't rushing to invade Saudi Arabia.
I'm not convinced that this war is anything but a drive for oil, a kickback to the arms industry, and a way for Bush Jr. to avenge the mistakes Bush Sr. made in the last Desert Storm war.
It seems, though, that we're going to war no matter what the world, the UN, and millions of our own people say. Bush wants a war with Iraq and he won't let down until he gets it. I'm waiting for the next Gulf of Tonkin (Persian Gulf?) incident that'll propel us into dancing in the desert again.
In the mean time, all I can do is hope my friend and his comrades get their ass back to the states in one piece.
----------------------
It bears mentioning that A. never actually made it to Iraq. He eventually deployed to one of the Ex-russia-istan countries and lived a very hard life (they were only allowed two beers a month!) fixing planes and generally ensuring that my sorry ass doesn't have to worry about Iraqi insurgents invading the neighboring cornfields.
In any case, I feel that what I wrote back then still resonates today. Yeah, I'm kind of surprised, too.
I'm thinking that sound I just heard was anyone who actually reads this blog running away. Really, what I'm about to post isn't actually that bad. It's pretty coherent, as far as my early writing goes, and I do make some good points. At the time, Bush and Co(cronies) were still waving their dicks around about the Iraqi "threat." We still hadn't, at least publically, committed any troops to the ground war effort. Saddam was still in power, which meant that the mid-east had a semblance of peace, if Afghanistan were ignored.
Anyway, here's the article.
----------------
2-25-03
The Bush administration is busy pissing another line in the snow and the economy is on life-support after a failed organ transplant. Jobs are down, morale is down, War-Hawk woodies are up and so is the disgust of many people. I'm out of a job and am currently student teaching students whose biggest worry is whether or not that cute kid who sits down the row can see the pimple on their face. I envy them, almost. It must be nice to be pleasantly oblivious to the dirt that's caking the world.
Clinton may have been busy getting more action than I am, but I remember his administration being a bit happier. Saddam was a little bug, not an obnoxious noisemaker. Kim Jong was too busy watching bad porn and knocking boots with his high-school age pleasure women. France was doing what it does best - whining and making wine.
It's easy to blame everything on Bush. But, really, I don't think he has the intelligence to fuck up the country and the world. Rather, I think the blame should be placed on the shoulders of an aging administration that was built during the Cold War. While their tactics may have been effective back then (that alone, is questionable), I'm wondering if those same tactics can be applied to today's modern
world.
Granted, might may win every time, but might is extremely bad for business. We may have a trade deficit, but we do trade with other countries and if our big businesses can't make a few bucks off the French or the rest of Old Europe, they won't be very happy with us. War may be good for the arms-trade and the Arms industry, but everyone else suffers. If we sanction French goods, they can, in turn, sanction Coca-Cola, Nike, and other popular brands.
In the mean time, if you're planning on dumping your Dom Perignon down the drain, don't. I'll happily take it off your hands. Good Champagne is good Champagne, regardless of where it's from.
That's all besides the point.
A few weeks ago, my life-long friend told me he was preparing to ship out to Iraq. A. joined the Air Force last year, and I guess he's going to serve our country. While I may have been against the war because I don't support the administration's foreign policy, I am now against the war because I'm not exactly sure why my friend might lose his life. I don't think he, or any other soldier, belongs in Iraq.
Bush has been telling us that we're going to war because Saddam may, or may not, have weapons of mass destruction (WhaMmeD). If we don't blow Saddam out of the Middle East, we may be WhaMmeD by these weapons. I can understand preemptive strikes against a hostile country that has enough nerve gas to ruin our day, but I don't understand why we're targeting this particular hostile country. North Korea has a burgeoning nuclear program and Kim Jong isn't exactly the most stable of dictators. He seems willing to bomb us. Why aren't we invading North Korea? China also has WhaMmeD capacity. We aren't invading them either? I suspect that we won't invade China because China will most likely kick our American Asses. We may have superior weapons
technology, but China has a larger army. Also, American businesses probably won't like that we'd be alienating over one billion potential customers. So, why Iraq?
Some people have been telling me that the war against Iraq will be a boon to Iraqi people. We remove their dictator. They get a crack at American businesses and American democracies (will their politicians, too, be prone to PAC begging?), and American food. By leaving Saddam alone, we're leaving the Iraqi people to desolation and living hells. While the humanitarian argument has some merit, and I willingly support using military action to save millions of people from poverty and destitution, I'm still questioning if that argument is valid. If we're willing to invade Iraq to save the people, then why haven't we kicked ass in North Korea? The North Koreans are starving too and Kim Jong is too busy having forced sex with carefully picked high-school girls and watching bad movies to notice. China, too, oppresses their people. Many African countries are wracked by civil wars and leaders who plunder the country while their people suffer. Why aren't we invading all these countries too? I don't buy the humanitarian argument.
I'm also told that removing Saddam is a necessary move in the war against Terrorism. In fact, they claim, Saddam has been helping Osama. But, Osama hates Saddam's guts. Saddam is a secular leader in a relatively religious area. Osama would do anything to eject Saddam and replace him with a religious leader that is faithful to Islamic
extremists. In the last purported Osama tape; there are recorded lines that bash Saddam and his government. Why are we trying to link Saddam and al Queda. There's no reasonable way they can be related. There may be some Iraqi members in al Queda. There are also Saudi members in al Queda, but we aren't rushing to invade Saudi Arabia.
I'm not convinced that this war is anything but a drive for oil, a kickback to the arms industry, and a way for Bush Jr. to avenge the mistakes Bush Sr. made in the last Desert Storm war.
It seems, though, that we're going to war no matter what the world, the UN, and millions of our own people say. Bush wants a war with Iraq and he won't let down until he gets it. I'm waiting for the next Gulf of Tonkin (Persian Gulf?) incident that'll propel us into dancing in the desert again.
In the mean time, all I can do is hope my friend and his comrades get their ass back to the states in one piece.
----------------------
It bears mentioning that A. never actually made it to Iraq. He eventually deployed to one of the Ex-russia-istan countries and lived a very hard life (they were only allowed two beers a month!) fixing planes and generally ensuring that my sorry ass doesn't have to worry about Iraqi insurgents invading the neighboring cornfields.
In any case, I feel that what I wrote back then still resonates today. Yeah, I'm kind of surprised, too.
posted by Jon at 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home