Daily Wisdom

January 26, 2007

Bumper of my SUV

Hat tip to Camojack...

Artist: Chely Wright
Lyrics for Song: Bumper of My S.U.V.
Album: Everything

I've got a bright red sticker on the back of my car,
Says: "United States Marines."
An' yesterday a lady in a mini-van,
Held up her middle finger at me.
Does she think she knows what I stand for,
Or the things that I believe?
Just by looking at a sticker for the US Marines,
On the bumper of my S.U.V.

See, my brother Chris, he's been in,
For more than 14 years now.
Our Dad was in the Navy during Vietnam,
Did his duty, then he got out.
And my Grandpa earned his Purple Heart,
On the beach of Normandy.
That's why I've got a sticker for the US Marines,
On the bumper of my S.U.V.

But that doesn't mean that I want war:
I'm not Republican or Democrat.
But I've gone all around this crazy world,
Just to try to better understand.
An' yes, I do have questions:
I get to ask them because I'm free.
That's why I've got a sticker for the US Marines,
On the bumper of my S.U.V.

'Cause I've been to Hiroshima,
An' I've been to the DMZ.
I've walked on the sand in Baghdad,
Still don't have all of the answers I need.
But I guess I wanna know where she's been,
Before she judges and gestures to me,
'Cause she don't like my sticker for the US Marines,
On the bumper of my S.U.V.

So I hope that lady in her mini-van,
Turns on her radio and hears this from me.
As she picks up her kids,
From their private school,
An' drives home safely on our city streets.
Or to the building where her church group meets:
Yeah, that's why I've got a sticker for the US Marines,
On the bumper of my S.U.V.


At 1/27/2007 2:32 PM , Anonymous Mrs Kajun said...

My sentiments, exactly!

At 1/28/2007 12:16 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Mrs Kajun,
Thanks for stopping by. Say hello to Kajun for me. Best wishes to you both.

At 1/29/2007 1:32 AM , Blogger camojack said...

I've got a bunch of stickers...on the back of my GMC.

At 1/29/2007 6:56 PM , Anonymous elroy said...

'Private schools'? What does this chump actually know about the 'lady in the mini-van'? Nothing, apart from that she seems to lack good road manners. But hey! We don't even know that the presence of the 'sticker on [her] SUV' is why the 'lady' gave Chely the finger anyway! She might have just cut her off or something! We don't know!

If Chely really has 'gone all around this crazy world', to Hiroshima, the DMZ and 'the sands of Baghdad' in an attempt to 'better understand' and did not get the' answers [she] needs then maybe she did not ask the right 'questions' or was simply not paying attention to the answers she DID get. It's one thing to hear, but another thing to listen.

However, I don't know all that for certain. Just wondering. Thinking. Observing. I could well be wrong. I don't know.

Chely doesn't know about the 'lady' either, but the last verse shows that Chely is as bad as she paints the 'lady as being. 'Judge not lest ye be judged!' - Matthew 7:1



At 1/29/2007 7:16 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

YES! You could well be wrong, and I DO know that - for a fact. (I mean, let's face it... your odds are only 50-50. You're either right or wrong).

(:D) Regards...

At 1/30/2007 12:03 AM , Anonymous Elroy said...

Nonsense, Hawkeye. I could be partly wrong, which would of course mean that I was partly right too, no?

Could there not be elements of truth in my statement? 50-50? Very black and white of you Hawkeye, but that's a convenient luxury/conceit/denial mechanism in which the right indulges. Shades of grey, Hawkeye, shades of grey!

And of course you completely missed my point, which is Chely's apparent hypocrisy. What sayest thou?



At 1/30/2007 8:35 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Whether you were completely wrong, mostly wrong, or partly wrong makes no difference... you could well be wrong (to one extent or another). As are we all by the way.

As regards Chely's "alleged" hypocrisy, that is in the mind of the beholder. I wasn't there and neither were you. Perhaps she saw the woman pulling into the driveway of the private school after she passed her doing the one-finger salute. Who knows?

It's a song for goodness sakes. It's not about the historical accuracy of the content... it's the message. A message which apparently resonates with some, but not with you. Too bad.

At 1/30/2007 8:07 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

So. ‘…completely wrong, mostly wrong, or partly wrong…’. Glad to see you’ve dropped that 50/50, black/white, on/off routine. Shades of grey starting to work for you, huh?

But it’s hard to see how being wrong ‘makes no difference’. Being wrong makes no difference? Oh, hang on, you’re a Republican; to you, being wrong does, indeed, make no difference – you just carry on regardless no matter how wrong you might, according to some, be.

I am well aware we are all wrong. And, considering this, it is therefore important, nay, vital, to admit when you are, especially if you occupy a position in power and particularly if you’re being wrong may result in the death of many innocent people. Or maybe that’s just me.

Chely’s hypocrisy is not in the mind of the beholder; it is both blatant and demonstrable.
Chely is accusing the ‘lady in the mini-van’ of not knowing what she ‘stands for’ or the ‘things’ that ‘she believes’, for flipping the bird without making any effort to discern whether or not Chely ‘wants war’ or the true nature of her voting intentions.

However, it could be argued that slapping a ‘United States Marines’ on the bumper of one’s S.U.V. is, in the current climate, an overtly political act, and as such one should be prepared to take whatever heat arises. I know this may bring up ‘personal responsibility’, a matter which is somewhat sticky for conservatives who like to prescribe it for others while keeping well clear of it themselves, but them’s the breaks.

Why is it so outrageous for the ‘lady in the mini-van’ to come to the conclusion, based on the sticker, that Chely is pro-war? It doesn’t exactly attest to any pacifist tendencies on Chely’s part does it? In fact, from the text of the lyric, it is still impossible to tell what her position may be.

If Chely is going to whine that her position is being misunderstood after making such a blanket and ambiguous statement as ‘United States Marines’, then may she shoud refine here message to ‘Support The Troops – Not The War!’ or some such unless, of course, she DOES support the war, in which case maybe the ‘lady in the mini-van’ was not being entirely unreasonable in making her somewhat bunt political point. See? Personal responsibility. Chely needs to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions instead of complaining about them to innocent country music fans, or maybe even be prepared to declare her position on the war and defend it. But she doesn’t and she isn’t.

Instead Chely grizzles that the ‘lady’ is making certain assumptions about her based on the available information and also infers that these are also based on her choice of motor vehicle, the automotive equivalent of said ‘finger; the SUV, but then goes on to make assumptions about the ‘lady’ based on less, specifically just her mini-van alone.

Chely says she put the sticker on because of her family connections to the military and somewhat bizarrely chastises the ‘lady’ for not knowing this, as if the ‘lady’ was not being sufficiently psychic, without considering the possibility that the ‘lady’s’ family might be in the military too. Indeed, this could be the cause of her concern; maybe she, like many others, sees the best way to protect the troops as bringing them home? We don’t know. And nor does Chely.

However, it also must be noted that, according to her opening ramble, that Chely’s antagonism is also class-based to a degree. She mentions that, at the time of the incident, she was driving through what she described as a ‘frou-frou’ part of town, and so therefore made her assumptions as to the ‘lady’s’ socio-economic background based on the ‘lady’s’ immediate geographical location – a salient fact handily omitted form the song’s text. But of course, the ‘lady’ may be thinking the exact same thing about her! Chely even gives her a hard time for going to church, which just goes to prove that the Christian church is as fractured as Islam.

But Chely is confused about what ‘judgment’ is. ‘But I guess I wanna know where she's been/Before she judges and gestures to me/’Cause she don't like my sticker for the US Marines/On the bumper of my SUV’ she croons, apparently oblivious of the dichotomy she has created; having questioned the ‘lady’s’ credentials for judging her, and her own credentials for judging the ‘lady’, she goes and judges the ‘lady’ anyway! The ‘lady’ might like to know where Chely has been before Chely judges her!

Chely claims to be a political neophyte, but she must be aware that in a time of war, however illegitimate, everything is political. You can’t whack a statement like that on the rear of your little red wagon and then claim innocence. Acting all hurt and misunderstood in some sort of sulkathonic seranade is not exactly an act of bravery and defiance, is it? I mean, she’s been to the ‘sands of Bagdhad’ and the DMZ, suposedly, so surely she HAS some opinion on war? Fence-sitting just ain’ gonna cut it – the old heat/kitchen avoidance agadge applies.

And so it is not just a song. It is a political statement. And no, it’s not a ‘historical document’, but it is communicating the idea (or the ‘message’ if you prefer) that, for the Right at least, one does not have to accountable for one’s free speech (the Left, of course, are not allowed that luxury) and that it’s OK to judge someone for judging you. However, I repeat again Matthew 7:1: ’Judge not, lest ye be judged’



At 1/30/2007 10:11 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Sorry. I didn't drop the 50-50 at all! You have a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong. You also have a 50-50 chance of being mostly right or mostly wrong. Again, you have a 50-50 chance of being partly right or partly wrong. Right? Or Wrong?

OK, probability suggests that Elroy will have a 10% chance of being mostly right, and a 90% chance of being mostly wrong. (I got that from the Las Vegas odds-makers).

And by the way... I am NEVER wrong. I am a legend in my own mind. Don't believe me? Well then, just ask me. I'll tell you exactly what I want to hear.

Don't take yourself so seriously Mr. Elroy... because I don't. Just answer me this: Why are you so afraid to love America and what it stands for?

I guess I should ask... are you an American? If not, well then, my apologies. Go suck a lemon! Can't enjoy what ya ain't got, eh?

If you are an American, then what the hell is your problem? Do you really despise Americans soldiers who are trying to liberate Iraqis? Did you love Saddam Hussein? Did you love what Saddam did to his people? Do you want Al-Qaeda to take over in Iraq? Do you want Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get a nuclear weapon so he can blow up your butt?

Don't tell me how smart you are. Tell me what you love and respect about America! That's all that matters. Patriotism is about love. What do YOU love about America?

At 2/02/2007 9:31 PM , Anonymous Purplehaze said...

Patriotism is not just about "loving' a country. Thats such a ridiculously oversimplification of a largely complex idealogy.

Your problem is that, you equate patriotism (or the lack there of) with the right to dissent and be vocal about the direction in which a country is headed.

If Patriotism equates to supporting with blind faith, all things undertaken by the Republican party of the United States of America, I am certain that more than half of the American population wishes to unsuscribe.

At 2/03/2007 12:11 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

SORRY, but you can check your Merriam-Webster if you like...

Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m,
chiefly British
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

Love is EXACTLY what patriotism is all about. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "ideology", and there need not be anything "complex" about it all. In fact, the simpler and truer the love, the more sincere it is (the same as with the love of a person).

Ideology on the other hand is defined as...

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -gies
French idéologie, from idéo- ideo- + -logie -logy
Date: 1813
1: visionary theorizing
2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

You don't need to be a visionary with a grand theory in order to love your country. You don't need a sociopolitical program to love your country. In fact, if Merriam-Webster is correct, the word ideology dates to 1813, but I know for a fact that there were patriots as early as 1776. Therefore, patriotism was in full bloom before the word ideology even existed.

I DO NOT equate patriotism with the right to dissent, or the failure to do so when prudence demands it (and please don't suggest that you know what I'm thinking - sometimes I'm not even sure what I myself am thinking). And even when you quote me, you should be cognizant of the fact that I am occasionally satirical.

Anyone can dissent, even those who HATE this country. And it seems perfectly obvious that many who dissent in this country fall into that category. They are NOT patriots, because (by definition) they do not LOVE their country.

And I never said that patriotism equals blind faith or obedience to the Republican party. Anyone can love their country... Democrats, Libertarians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hispanics, Afro-Americans, Asians, and even white boys from red states who don't read the New York Times.


At 2/04/2007 11:40 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

Ok, ignore my post and change the subject if you please, but understand that means one-nil to Elroy!

In my experience, people who claim they are never wrong stand about a 1% chance of ever being so, but as truth is subjective (there’s a little post-modernist philosophy for y’all) the point is, fundamentally, moot.

As you are clearly an open-minded individual who can appreciate opposing points of view, and I am but a hopelessly brainwashed far-left automaton, I can only offer regurgitated communist propaganda in response to your most prescient onslaught. However, I hope you will indulge me in the hope that I may learn a better way of being.

1. Why are you so afraid to love America and what it stands for?

I’m not. There is a yawning chasm between what America THINKS it stands for and the current reality. I think the USA’s founding fathers were pretty well on the money – it’s a shame the current administration are so dismissive of these stout gentlemen’s ideas.

2. Are you an American?

Irrelevant. You ask questions which involve the entire world. The USA’s perspective is but one of many. Get over it.

3. What the hell is your problem?

That the current actions of the WH etc will lead to the destruction of the planet. Just a small thing, really.

4. Do you really despise Americans soldiers who are trying to liberate Iraqis?

Of course not. They are just obeying orders (not that, according to the Nuremburg Trials, that is a defense), feed their families and learn a trade, but I question whether ‘liberate’ is truly the right word. They were originally sent in to locate alleged WMD; the ‘liberation’ bit came later. Saddam notwithstanding, before this war and certainly before the imposition of sanctions Iraq was one of the most modern, secular and progressive states in the ME. Their education and health care systems were as good as, if not better than, many western countries (including the USA). These are now shattered beyond repair, as is all major infrastructure such as electricity, water and sewerage.

The USA promised to fix all these problems with the $20 billion of Iraq’s money which the UN had salvaged from the oil-for-food program but, sadly, this money was squandered by the CPA in an orgy of corruption, fraud, grandstanding, price-gouging, war profiteering, incompetence, stupidity and outright theft. (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1734939,00.html and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12499.htm

‘We will rebuild your country’ has become ‘there are limits to our ‘generosity’’. The very substance of Iraq society, tribal, religious, and family protocols, have broken down. In an act of unbelievable ignorance, hubris and ideological insanity, both the Army and the country’s entire bureaucracy were disbanded as the Pentagon, instead of the far better equipped State Department, took charge. But even then, even THEN the CPA had a chance to put things right by sending in experts in the post-war reconstruction and health. But did they do this?

No. They sent in college kids and idiots selected purely on their political beliefs. Instead of ensuring that emergency medical supplies were in abundance, the man in charge of the health system immediately launched an anti-smoking campaign; now children die for want of the most basic of medical supplies. Instead of making sure that some sort of local currency was in circulation, the priority of those in charge were making sure that all Dinars were replaced with new notes without Saddam on them. This took time, and more money, so meanwhile Iraqis had to try and work for USD, but was no work for Iraqis in Iraq as the majority of ‘reconstruction’ was, and is, carried out by contractors who build untenable buildings and run off with the cash in the aforementioned loot-a-thon. The Sunni and the Shia are at each other’s throats. Christians and Mennonites are being persecuted.

Remember, Iraq did not ask for this; they did not say ‘come and liberate us’; they had ‘liberation’ thrust upon them, which begs the question of why are they now being held responsible for the current situation? Conservatives are always banging on about how Iraq must ‘stand up so we can stand down’ and ‘fight for their freedom’ but freedom from what? And who? Freedom from Sunni ‘insurgents’ or Shiite militias? As far as many Iraqis are concerned they ARE fighting for their freedom – freedom from the USA.

The place is a wreck. The Kurds seem to be fairing better but it must be remembered that no-one, least of all the Kurds and Saddam Hussein, ever considered the Kurds Iraqi in any real sense. They have enjoyed the favor of the US for quite a while now, but just wait ntil they try to take Kirkut!

The upshot of all this is that the US is not seen as a liberator but an oppressor, a carpet-bagger who has come to loot them for whatever they can lay their hands on, and given the USA’s behavior to date, this is not surprising. In short then, the only way the US army can liberate the Iraqis is to shoot them. Or themselves. Of course, needing liberation from US ‘liberators’ is not a new phenomenon; just ask the Filipinos subject to America’s tender mercies in the America–Spanish War of 1899.

Of course, the truth is the US is not trying to liberate anyone. It’s all about geopolitics, which is, in turn, about oil, power, profit and regional dominance.

5. Did you love Saddam Hussein?

Not at all, unlike Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of Ronnie Reagan’s wrecking crew.
Sassam was a bastard. He was, however, America’s bastard. They helped arm him and helped him fight Iran. He was a bad man who did bad things, and although the US does the same things on a smaller scale, and less overtly, it covers them in a veneer of respectability that Saddam could not, but Saddam also did some good things. Did the bad outweigh the good? Some Iraqis say yes, others no. The point is, it was the Iraqi people’s problem to decide what to do.

The US could have helped after Gulf War I (an event that took Saddam somewhat by surprise, considering that the WH had sanctioned his moves on Kuwait) by following though on their promise to back a Shia uprising, but, surprise surprise, once the insurgency was underway the US pulled the hand-woven antique rug form under their sandaled feet as Papa Bush realized that it better suited his agenda to leave Saddam in place. As a result of this, thousands died. Is their blood on Papa’s hands? You betcha!

Another upshot of this betrayal is a profound mistrust of the US and its intentions, mistrust that it appears entirely reasonable. Saddam was only expendable when the US felt it was expedient to expend him; if ‘freedom’ for Iraq was the USA’s intent, why did they not take the opportunity to help Iraq obtain that freedom when the time was ripe?
Because he served a purpose and the USA did not know what or who might replace him. Junior, however, being a captive of of PNAC nutters, was not so circumspect, and so achieved a far, far, far, worse outcome than any that may have eventuated had Papa kept his word.

No, Saddam should not have slaughtered the citizens that joined in the revolution, but should Indonesian dictator have butchered 1.5 million of his fellow countrymen following the CIA backed coup of 1965? No, but did the USA ever try to stop him? Again, the answer is no. In fact the US cheered him on, and propped up his corrupt and brutal regime before the next thirty years. And there’s more. See, those that read their history thoroughly know that the USA’s claim to be nothing but a source of goodness and light in the world is a sham.

Don’t misunderstand me; I’m glad the Saddam has gone, but again, surely that choice was up to the Iraqis? At the moment, they’d rather have Saddam than what they have now. He may have needed to go, but there were plenty of other ways to do it. Blowing the place to Allah, and the USA’s subsequent actions, were the wrong way. And the WH knew it but they did it anyway, because getting rid of Saddam was not what it was all about.

6. Did you love what Saddam did to his people?

No, and neither do I ‘love’ what the US has done to ‘his’ people. 650,000 civilian deaths,
3000 US deaths and counting. Happy?

7. Do you want Al-Qaeda to take over in Iraq?

Wow! You really have no clue what is going on there, do you? Al-Qaeda are not going to take over in Iraq or anywhere else. They are Sunni Muslims, as are the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, while the majority of Iraq are Shia. Maybe you’ve noticed a certain amount of discord between them of late? I remember seeing warnings of exactly this scenario from a myriad of sources in the years and months leading up to the current conflagration, but the Pentagon was in no mood fer listenin'.

The only country likely to wield influence is Iran, also predominantly Shia, who played the US for suckers by getting them to knock out their enemies to their west, the Taliban, and to their east, Saddam. If the people of Iraq want Sharia law and an alliance with Iran, isn’t that the freedom the US has been fighting for? For them to choose their own form of governance? Obviously not. Obviously, the can have any democracy as long as it’s the one they are told to have. It seems strange to me that Rummy and his mates thought that the best way to ensure that a Shia majority did not take over Iraq was to knock out the ruling Sunni minority. Ah well.

One might have hoped that the full ramifications of catastrophic failure might have been fully considered by the war planners when they were plotting their imperial conquest but, alas, it looks like they had ‘other priorities’. I’m sorry, but that is just criminally negligent. The ‘Powell Doctrine’ (remember him?) was that you clearly articulate your goals, hit the enemy with overwhelming force and quickly execute your exit strategy but Rummy was having none of it. The goals changed more times than Hilary’s hairdo as the US went in with way less troops than were recommended and absolutely no clue what to if it all went belly-up. Which it is has. But the US never had an exit strategy for a reason – it didn’t need one. And it didn’t need one because it never really intended to leave.

What kind military genius obliterates an entire nation state and then expects the vacuum created to be suspended while Democracy™ is duly installed? Naïve? Certainly.
Negligent? I think so. Certifiably insane? Um… The US has won the Iran-Iraq war for them and Ahmadinejad is laughing his head off.

But now things are getting weirder. Having ejected two formerly friendly Sunni regimes, the US has suddenly realized that it has created a monster in shape of a resurgent Shia and so is now schmoozing up to the other Sunnis like the Saudis, the Bush dynasty’s money suppliers, and Pakistan, Jordan, UAE, Egypt et al. But is taking sides wise? And whose side to take? If the US takes up with the Sunnis, the Shia majority is going to think, quite rightly, that the US is full of it. If, on the other hand, they back the Shia, the ones that they supposedly ‘liberated’, then the Sunni states are going to hit back. Where do you think the Sunni ‘insurgent’ funding comes from? The Saudis! But Bush ain’t gonna say boo to them, is he?

Saudi Arabia cannot afford to have Iran control of so much oil and reduce the Saudi’s influence over OPEC, and so the Sunnis are using America as a proxy Army to shore up their profit margin. Actually, if you really want to go to the source of the funding for Islamic fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia would be a great place. Osama is a Saudi. They Saudis sponsor, or have sponsored, the madrasses in Pakistan et al, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, various nutty Imams around the world and even the Shia organization Hamas!
Talk about having a bet each way! So, if Bush was serious about his efforts to root out Islamic terrorists’ moneymen he would go after the Saudis, but seeing has he shares in their largess his hands are tied. Does if make you feel better knowing that the CIC and VP are owned by those that bankroll the ‘enemy’? We do indeed live in interesting times.

8. Do you want Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get a nuclear weapon so he can blow up your butt?

Not at all, so I call on Dick Cheney and Halliburton to stop flogging them the hardware. Yup, Dick again. He has been turning a buck by supplying Iran with all their nuclear hardware needs since the mid-nineties, and still does to this day. Funny that, huh? He’s obviously oblivious to the ‘Trading With The Enemy Act’ which was enacted after WW2, when it was discovered that GE, IBM, SO, GM and Ford were cheerfully selling their wares to those nasty Nazis before AND after Pearl Harbor. Ooh yeah, and let’s not forget Preston Bush, Junior’s granddaddy and the Third Reich’s banker of choice!
Yup, them East Coast elites don’t mind WHO they’re selling their stuff to as long as it’s somebody. I guess capitalism has as much regard for borders as it does for moraliity.

It must also be remembered that the Iran’s nuclear blueprints were sold to them by the citizen of a nation state that funds and harbors Al-Aaeda to this day, that is ruled by a military junta that seized power in a coup, unseating the democratically elected leader, and who have also acquired a bomb. Which is this rouge state, this evil enabler? Why, it was America’s good friend Pakistan!

Yup, the good Doctor A.Q Khan flogged off the recipe to all comers! NK? One of his best customers! Libya? Gaddafi could never resist a bargain! So what jail is he currently
languishing in? To what CIA hellhole was he extraordinarily renditioned? None! He’s still walking around as free as a bird! AND he got to keep the money! Not a bad deal for a guy who has supplied the ultimate WMD to two thirds of the Axis of Evil!

So A.Q is A-OK because he is America’s proliferator of nuclear technology? Puh-leese!. But never forget, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not stupid, and nor is he many the many things Sean Hannity would have you believe he is. For instance, did he really say he wants to ‘drive Israel into the sea’? No actually, he didn’t. Properly translated, what said was "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", rather like the Romans, the British, the Soviet Union and Saddam. He expounded further to TIME magazine:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

What’s wrong with that? The Palestinian situation is central to stability in the ME and, as a Muslim, Ahmadinejad is unhappy with Israel. Of course he is. The Muslim states ask the not unreasonable question of ‘why must the Palestinian people pay the price for Europe’s crimes? The Holocaust did not happen on the Gaza strip, it happened in Germany, yet the Germans and those that helped them have not had to suffer the imposition forced upon them that the Arabs have. Is that fair? Not really, no.

The states in thee cross-hairs of American foreign policy recognize American, and particularly conservative American, hypocrisy over the ownership of nuclear weapons and, quite reasonably, use the curious logic of the NRA as proof of the USA’s duplicity on the matter.

The NRA, and therefore, by extension, the vast majority of the Right, argue for the right to own weapons because, they say, everyone else has one, and if every else has one, we want one too. If the guy two doors down buys an AK–47, the chances are you will feel threatened and buy one as well; at least you will claim the right to buy one while defending the guy two doors down’s right to own his. On the other hand, you could just claim the right to ‘preemptively’ burn his house down. Whatever.

The NRA also say that if ‘normal’ people’ aren’t allowed to own guns then the only guns left will be in the hands of the ‘bad guys’. Well, guess what? According to Iran the USA are the bad guys, so they not unfairly argue that if the US and Israel can have nuclear weapons, why can’t they?

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has seen what happens to countries that are accused of having them as opposed to those which actually do have them. ‘Iraq might have nuclear weapons! Boom!’ ‘North Korea HAS got nuclear weapons! They are very, very naughty and we are going to give them the BIGGEST time out…’ Under those circumstances, if I were the head of a ‘rogue’ state I would be down to that atomic hardware shop quicker’n you could say E=MC2.

Be careful what you wish for. If the US domestic policy is to let anyone, no matter how unhinged, own a firearm then the ROTW can be forgiven for being confused when this doctrine is not reflected in its foreign policy, and never forget that now that the world has been blessed by the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike right now Iran would be quite within its rights to bomb Washington first thing Monday morning.

Not that I WANT Iran to get a nuclear bomb; I just understand why they think they have a right to and why they might feel a need to. They, understandably, think Israel is a threat, and they are probably right; Israel does have a number of warheads pointing straight at Ahmadinejad’s condo.The only way to stop the threat of mutually assured atomic destruction once and for all is to dispose of all nuclear weaponry once and for all. That means the USA too. Everyone. All of it. And the bits that make it, and the bits that make the bits (sorry Dick!) and so on.

The same goes for handguns, rifles, semi-automatics, all of them. If preventing a deer being shot in the woods prevents my kid being shot in high school then guess what? Bambi is gonna grow old, and fat, and die of natural causes.

However, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not about to get a nuclear weapon so he can blow up my butt, No matter what WH propaganda you might swallow, there is actually no evidence that Ahmadinejad even wants one, and even if he did he wouldn’t, according to the CIA, be able to press the button until at least 2017.

In fact, there is no evidence that Iran poses any threat to the US at all. They have not invaded any other country (unlike Israel) or ignored any UN resolutions (again unlike Israel, the reigning world champion), they supported the US in Afghanistan and, according to British military officials and General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons.

So why is George after them? Could the Rev. James Dobbs be correct when he said in 2002:

"In order to fulfill the biblical prophesy of expanding the Kingdom of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates...God has charged (President Bush) to turn Babylon (Iran, Iraq etc) into a howling wilderness where not even an insect can survive."

Yup, any one of a number of US nuclear warheads can pull that off a treat. And while we’re at it, how about this little pleasantry from Psalms 137:"Daughters of Babylon...who are to be destroyed.' happy are we who take and dash your children against the rocks! Ah Christianity, the religion of peace!

Or is about the oil? Again?

9. What do you love about America?

That its people are about to elect a sane President and repair the damage the last guy did, hopefully before it’s too late.

You say patriotism equates to unrestricted love, as one might have for one's partner or child. If that is the case, then you will recognize the need sometimes to set them straight if they go off the rails, like if the wife hits the slot machines, or your youngest joins a cult, or your eldest goes discovers the joys of Methamphetamines. What do you do? Just leave them to it, regardless of the damage they might do to themselves and others? Or do you voice your concerns and maybe organize an intervention of some sort? What is the more responsible course of action?

And so, as I have answered your questions more than fully, I trust you will show me the same respect in doing the same and answering mine.

1. Why are you so afraid to criticize America and make it stand for what it says it stands for?

2.Why does it matter whether or not I am an American?

3.What the hell is your problem?

4. Do you really despise Americans soldiers who are trying to liberate Iraqis’ oil?

5. Did your leaders love Saddam Hussein?

6. Did you love what George Bush has done to Saddam’s people?

7. Do you want the US to take over in Iraq?

8. Do you want anyone to use a nuclear weapon so to blow up your butt?

9. Tell me what you dislike about America?

Don't tell me how smart you are –I know already. You are a legend in your own mind. You are NEVER wrong. You’ll tell me exactly what you want to hear. Yup, you sound like a pretty open-mined kinda guy, so let’s get in with it.




Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home