So, some people interpret Nostradamus’ prophecy that the 3rd WW would originate from the mid-east by the guy in a purple turban. There were rumours, in various history media, that the guy was Saddam. Now, what I find funny is that the guy who’s “started” all this fun stuff is no where to be found. Yet, new countries are being targeted.
In today’s bombing, George I of the US and Tony Blair, used it to justify why they attacked in the first place. My question to them, is can they prove that these attacks would have happened whether they attacked or not? My voice, is that the attack provoked these attacks (please keep in mind that those who are perpetrating these attacks are not playing by “gentleman’s rule of war”).
Personally, I’d throw out this concept of a gentleman’s war, geneva accords or no. I think trying to put a kinder face on the concept of war is a joke. War has no rules, and it has no form. The only way either comes into existance is by the agreement of both sides to abide by common rules. Our “opponent” in this war has shown itself to not agree to the common rules, we are not taking a “high” road by holding to those rules. Instead, I think we’re trying to perpetuate some “martyr complex” with it. Screw it, I think we should throw out the book.
Freakchylde's 
Amen!
I agree in spirit. However, we do have the high road in this issue. Yes, the US has been involved in foreign politics in every country in the world in one way or another. That happens when you’re the most powerful nation on Earth. Everything we do affects every other nation to some extent. We have stated openly and in writing that we will abide by certain rules. We have made a promise to the peoples of the world that they can expect us to behave in a certain fashion. If we, at the first sign of provocation*, say that we will not abide by our sworn word, then we become untrustable by the enemy and by our allies.
Do I think we should break out the drills and start kneecapping anyone of swarthy complection? Hell no. Do I think we need to take the political blinders off our military and police forces and allow them to objectively and efficiently do their job without fear of being non-PC? Hell Yes.
I also think we should repeal every gun control act since the first jim-crowesque gun-tax of the 1860s. Arm this nation to the teeth, every house, every adult citizen. Mandate training and competency levels. Make it affordable and possible to own military level weaponry again. Then sit back and dare someone to try a 9/11 again. If we have the confidence of an armed and competent populace behind us, then all the federal govt need worry about is what happens in other countries.
Picture this:
Bob is approached by a foreign national to walk into a crowded school lunch room and spray the room with bullets.
Today, Bob has near 100% assurity that no one else in the building will be armed. In most areas, no one within 1/5 of a mile will be armed.
If we repeal the gun control laws and allow our populace to arm themselves, then Bob will have near 100% assurity that at least one person, if not every adult in the building, will be armed, competent and willing to protect the children with deadly force.
Now, put yourself in Bob’s shoes. Jimmy the Camelrider Monk of the Mujahadeen Mafia tries to hire you to kill some kids. Which of the two scenarios above make it much more likely that you’ll tell Jimmy what he can do with his Camel?
Sorry for the rant. I now return you to your regularly scheduled federally funded cnn broadcast five minute hate.
LikeLike
Re: Amen!
My main issue is the fact that we’ve already lost trust in regards to other countries. If you’re going to fuck up, might as well fuck up royally. To top that, we’ve already ditched a few of those standards through our searches (that don’t get reported by the mass media) and violated a few of those rules we’ve said we’d abide by. It’s one theory behind the whole “al Qaeda is recruiting faster than we can disband” concept. Another reason why Bush told Wolfowitz to light a fire under the asses of the Iraqi National Congress and get them going so we can get out of there.
If we, at the first sign of provocation*, say that we will not abide by our sworn word, then we become untrustable by the enemy and by our allies.
While that will piss off a shitload of countries, it’ll guarantee that we’ll never have to suffer what we’re going through now. It’s the point of Corporal Punishment, make the threat enough that someone won’t give you reason. Yes, it’s bullying, used with restraint, useful and not much different than we’re already utilizing.
As for arming us over here, we’re not really the ones we have to worry about right now. It’s other people who are being attacked, Islamic countries are being attacked and that’s a huge problem, especially since the countries being attacked are the same brand of moslem that the al Qaeda purports to be.
We are not fighting a gentleman’s war, to pretend that it is, is not only naive of us, but dangerous. That is why zealots are the worst lot to have to fight, they don’t stop. In order to fight fire with fire, you have to become fire, not water.
LikeLike