WE HATE YOU....OH SHIT, HELP US!!!It seems certain people are all over the opportunity to use this tsunami disaster (and an awful disaster it is) to attack the United States and President Bush. CNN, known for their rampant patriotism, was airing a clip yesterday of a disaster survivor screaming "Please tell the world, where is America?" First off, there's no fucking way in the world that this guy could have had any idea who was doing what where relief efforts are concerned. He had just survived a terrible natural disaster and may well have lost members of his family, and there he is asking "Where is America?" His inane screams just validate what most of us already know: when times get rough anywhere in the world, the people affected look to America for help. One day they may be demonstrating outside an American embassy demanding for the withdrawal and removal of all things American from their part of the world, and they next day they reflexively look to America for rescue.
America will once again show its generosity and goodness to the world as this disaster unfolds. Once again we will be the greatest friend this world has known. And once again we will get no thanks. Ironically the sort of strength of character that we are showing now is what will ultimatly perpetuate the animosity against our country. It might be a good time to remember that poll that was taken just prior to the presidential election. A surveyed showed that 58% of the various nationalities polled wanted to see the United States and its role in world affairs weakened. A weakened United States could not respond to this disaster in as meaningful a way. These people will put aside their desires for American weakness until this tragedy is passed. Then it will be back to business as usual. In the meantime, they will shreak about how our help is not good enough.
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Saturday, December 25 2004 | ||||||
BACK THIS YEAR BY POPULAR DEMAND...  OtterVomit  The Grinch  Pissed Off Remains of Frosty the Snowman  and Scrooge Himself!
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Thursday, December 23 2004 | ||||
| WORTH THE PRICE? Can you please explain to me how 1000 lost American lives was a price worth paying for deposing someone as insignifigent as Sadam Husain? Fair question. And its a question that many people would try to finesse. I won't. We've covered this before, but it bears repeating. Sometimes you make a decision based on the consequences of failure to act. Various types of insurance are an example. You don't buy car insurance because you expect to be in an accident. You buy car insurance because the consequences of getting in an accident without that insurance are something you don't want to deal with. Certainly Saddam Hussein could have been left in the seat of power in Iraq. One could say that the odds might have been pretty strong that no great calamity would have befallen the United States if Saddam had been left alone. We already know the cost of removing Saddam; over 1000 American lives and the deaths of many Iraqis. What, though, could have been the potential worst-case cost of leaving him in power? We know that Saddam had chemical weapons. He used them to kills tens of thousands of Iranians and his own people. We know that Saddam had biological weapons. We also know that Saddam was working on developing a nuclear weapon. People have conveniently forgotten that Iraqi nuclear scientist who stepped forward and led coalition officials to the equipment Saddam had ordered buried in his back yard ... equipment used to develop weapons-grade uranium. So let's say we leave Saddam alone. We're just not willing to pay the price to depose him. Almost certainly Iraqis would continue to die at his hands by the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Saddam's grave diggers would have genuine job security. And, once Saddam figured out that the United States was not going to act against him, he most certainly would have cranked up his weapons programs again. How long would it have been before Saddam managed to build his first nuclear device? Pointed it at Iran? Isreal? Oh, you say we could have prevented that with UN inspectors and a policy of containment? Containment, you say? Like the oil-for-food program? Yeah, that worked, didn't it? And how many times did Saddam kick inspectors out of Iraq? The only time inspectors were allowed any freedom of operation in Iraq at all was during those periods when Saddam genuinely feared a US military strike. Remove that threat and inspectors are gone. What might be the price we pay for failing remove Hussein? The 9/11 Commission made it clear that there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We also know that Saddam openly financed and rewarded terrorist attacks against Israel. Saddam showed every willingness to support terrorist causes, who's to say that he wouldn't have placed some of his chemical, biological or nuclear materials with Islamic terrorists? Could one of Saddam's bombs make it into a container on a ship bound for New York? Can you see that container being loaded on a truck bound for midtown Manhattan? What price would we pay then? What price would our 20-20 hindsight tell us was too much to pay to prevent the100,000 dead that would result from a terrorist nuclear attack in New York? Saddam wasn't deposed just to avoid the negative consequences of his continuing in power. There were positive benefits to pursue also. Like it or not, admit it or not, but the world is experiencing yet another world war. This is the war against radical Islam. Islam was once the dominant cultural, military and political force in the world. Islam's slide to degenerate obscurity was partially brought about by its continued denial of even the most basic freedoms to its people. Today a powerful and capable Islamic fundamentalist movement is determined to reinstate Islam to what they believe its God-ordained role as the world's dominant and ruling religion. These Islamic radicals will use any tool, including murder on a scale unimaginatively massive, to achieve that goal. Saddam was an ally of this thinking. In the short term the greatest weapon that can be brought to bear against Islamic terrorism is brute, unrelenting force. In the long term the greatest weapon would be freedom. If the United States and its coalition succeeds in Iraq -- and it must succeed -- in taking the largest and potentially wealthiest country in the Middle East and converting it into a showcase of freedom with a government freely elected by its people, the United States would have dealt a devastating blow to the cause of Taliban-type Islamic fundamentalism. The desire to be free is universal (except, perhaps, in the United States). Show the virtually enslaved people of the Middle East that freedom can be theirs and they'll do their part to defeat the cause of the Islamic terrorists who vow to attack and kill us. If (hopefully when) the United States and its coalition partners succeed in creating in Iraq a government freely elected by the people and a government that recognizes and upholds the rights of those people history will show it to be one of the greatest accomplishments for the cause of true world peace and freedom ever achieved by any nation. Many of the men and women who have given their lives in Iraq recognized this. Too bad more American's don't.
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Wednesday, December 15 2004 | ||
WHAT AN UNFORTUNATE HEADLINE!!! 
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Thursday, December 9 2004 |
| HOW DO WE ELECT DANGEROUS IDIOTS LIKE THIS? The brain-dead, idiotic, disgusting, anti-American, childish, can't-get-over-it politician of the day is one Nelson Polite, a member of the Lancaster, Pennsylvania city council. Thankfully this jerk will rise no further up the political ladder. Even Democrats think he's a fool. Polite is upset because of David Stoltzfus who runs a baked goods stand at the local city market. Stoltzfus has a picture of President Bush hanging in the stand. Polite is a Democrat. Polite made a trip to visit Stoltzfus to tell him that he and other Lancaster Democrats are "offended" by the picture of President Bush, and he wants it taken down immediately. Stoltzfus told him no. Now Polite says he is going to ask for a new city ordinance that would make the posting of any political material, including a picture of the President of the United States on city property illegal. Polite says "there should be rules." Yeah, ok... in America there should be rules which prevent an American citizen from posting a picture of the President of the United States in his place of business. Where do people like Nelson Polite come from? Just in case you are someone who collects addresses of city council members from around the country, here's one you may be interested in. Mr. Nelson M. Polite Lancaster City Council politesr14@aol.com 540 North Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 392-4655 (717) 392-3434 (Fax) I've already faxed him a picture of Bush. TROOPS TAKE ON RUMSFELD The press is aghast today after a little episode Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had yesterday while visiting the troops in Kuwait. The good secretary decided to take some questions from the floor, and the troops gave Rummy a run for his money. First question: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Rumsfeld's reply: the Army is sparing no expense in trying to get all the armor it can, and besides an armored tank can still be blown up. Then somebody asked about the stop-loss policy, where soldiers that were scheduled for retirement or to leave the service are kept on. Rumsfeld's response: "It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood. My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used." He also said: "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have." I'm sure that tweaked the left just a little. Which is what a lot of people are forgetting. We are at war against an enemy. You fight, you kill, you win. You do what it takes. So what did Rumsfeld make of the question and answer session where he got grilled? Later, he said "It's necessary for the Army to hear that, do something about it and see that everyone is treated properly." Good. No wonder Bush kept him on for a second term. INSURGENTS GONE IN A YEAR Iraq's Interim President Ghazi al-Yawar gave an interview to CNN yesterday. In it, he said that he sees no reason why the insurgents fighting in Iraq won't be gone in a year, saying "I think one year from now, exactly, we'll be very busy preparing for our free democratic election after we have a constitution." That doesn't square with the pessimistic view in the media that the war in Iraq is somehow a failure, now does it? And what about the Vietnam comparisons? We've been hearing for almost 2 years now that Iraq is another Vietnam....a quagmire (John Kerry's words). It's of no importance that the war in Vietnam lasted for decades and had 50 times more casualties. So the interim president also addressed that: "We're not fighting a Viet Cong, which has principles and popular support. We are fighting Saddam loyalists. ... They know they are fighting for a losing battle. The whole Iraqi population is against them. I'm sick and tired of them." Doesn't sound like they'll last too long, does it? So how long are American troops going to stay? Until enough Iraqis are trained to replace them. Sounds like things are going pretty well in Iraq, doesn't it? That's right, they are. Remember when people said tens of thousands of U.S. troops would die in the fall of Baghdad? It didn't happen. Remember when people said the transfer of sovereignty would never take place? It happened early. Interim Constitution? Agreed upon. Elections? They'll happen next month, right on time. Looks like the Bush-haters are going to have to find a new line of work.
|