Anti-Subjugator: War? What war?
I was reading some humorous comic strips over here and I am continually bemused by the complete stupidity of the right-wing for not understanding how to fight an ideological war. Basically they can't get past the "just bomb random places - that should teach 'em!". The specific complaints about Bush in this instance include:
"allowing for Islamic law in Afghanistan and Iraq"
Ok, moron. You'd rather we started ramming things down the Afghan's throats? Are you willing to go to war with the Afghan people in order to do that? Instead of the current situation where the Afghans have welcomed US troops (something that many idiots said was totally impossible), and are willing to fight our enemies (Taliban and Al Qaeda) using their own troops, you want us to go to war with the entire Afghan population? Are you willing to see US troops die to ram something down their throat, for marginal benefit? Or were you planning on simply carpet bombing the Afghan people into submission, for the same marginal benefit? The fact is the Afghan people have allowed freedom of speech for you to make your case, and they've allowed women to vote. You now have a means of getting the government you think the Afghans should have, via peaceful means. Regardless, the option of going to war with the Afghan people hasn't been taken away. Now is just not the right time to open such a war front.
Similarly, what's the beef with Iraq? Can you actually point to a single Iraqi law that you don't like? Once again, the US has pulled off the near-impossible. It has managed to convert a dictatorship into a democracy and have that democracy choose to not be an enemy of the US, despite decades of Saddam brainwashing the Iraqi people to hate the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have bravely stood up to fight enemies of America, and millions of Iraqis bravely defied terrorist threats to support the democracy that America brought, and you want to go to war with these people to ram something down their throat that will have essentially zero effect, in the absence of a single law you can point to?! Do you people smoke the same whacky weed that the Democrats do or what?
"not waging a war to truly defeat the enemies"
Hey moron, that war HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET. Before we go to war, we need to actually IDENTIFY THE FRIGGIN ENEMY. Unless you're planning on wiping out every Arab, every Muslim, and hey, just to be safe, every non-American, and hey, Democrats as well, and better make it whites as well, to cover those like Timothy McVeigh, well, you'll never win.
The fact is, we need badly needed EXPERIMENTAL DATA from Iraq, just to IDENTIFY the enemy. The data from Afghanistan was important, but not nearly as important as that from Iraq. Data from Iran is also important. We already have the data from Eastern Europe, and Russia. Data from the rest of the world is more-or-less available, except for probably North Korea and Cuba. So we basically have the ability to analyze who is hostile to America et al, and why.
"avoiding shrines and sacrificing troops"
First of all, the number of troops being lost in total is microscopic. The number of troops being lost due to shrine avoidance is microscopic microscopic. And what it buys us is the opportunity to get unblemished data. It is difficult for the Muslims in Iraq to say that America is there to destroy Islam when it's going to such obvious lengths to "respect" this death cult. So, they continue on their merry way oblivious to the fact that when the real war starts, they may be in for genocide. Jury's still out on that.
"blindly worshipping "democracy""
It's not being blindly worshipped. That is what is necessary in order to get accurate experimental data. Rigged polls or forcing things down people's throats would mean that we lose that data forever. The fact is we've managed to obtain this data, which will be invaluable for future war plans. And nothing at all has been lost. At any time you want to start forcing something down the throats of the Iraqi people, that option is available. Have you decided what you want to force down people's throats yet? There seems to be some disagreement on that. For example, Ann Coulter said "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
That's a reasonable start. You can look around and see that American Christians aren't cheering 9/11, so an obvious conclusion is "hey, if we convert them to Christianity, all will be fine". Unfortunately, Ann isn't so bright after all. She says "I'm still waiting to hear a better suggestion.". Well, Ann, the better suggestion was given to the world in message 666 on Sept 11, 2004. You, like most people, weren't listening, or failed to understand it, whatever. You see, the Christians of South America hate your guts, so an Arab form of South America isn't going to buy you much. It may buy you something, but not much. And it completely misses the point that there were atheists and Muslims who wanted to protect America. I personally have tried to protect America both as an atheist and as a Muslim. So your theory is crap.
However, you are right about a war to change the religion of the Middle East in order to protect America. But the war needs to eventually extend to South America, Africa etc as well. And it isn't ill-defined "Christianity" that needs to be spread, as an ill-defined version of it has already been spread to almost the entire South American continent. You instead need to spread message 666. Ok, if you're too stupid to do that, then fine, spread some form of Christianity to the Middle East, and it will at least get you closer to message 666, which is a good thing.
Regardless, when this religious war begins, that will be a real war. It won't be pretty. It will be bloody. However, the "data gathering" being done in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a real war. The real war has yet to begin, and may never even be waged. We're not ready to wage it yet. But Ann has correctly identified the scope. A religious war is required. Her mindless bigotry that the religion she was indoctrinated with is the only possible solution notwithstanding.
Regardless, the complete war, the least worst war strategy, has been outlined for several years now. When will the right wing wake up and actually wage it? Or at least support Bush who has, coincidentally or not, been following the least worst option already, even if the right-wing are too stupid to see that. Obviously the left are too stupid to figure out whether the enemy is people with beards chopping off heads or a guy who disagrees with the government-run health care. But given that the right-wing at least live in the real world, you'd think that they'd have the logic skills required to recognize a kick-arse war plan. Apparently not though.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 16:46
Anti-Subjugator: War? What war?
I was reading some humorous comic strips over here and I am continually bemused by the complete stupidity of the right-wing for not understanding how to fight an ideological war. Basically they can't get past the "just bomb random places - that should teach 'em!". The specific complaints about Bush in this instance include:
"allowing for Islamic law in Afghanistan and Iraq"
Ok, moron. You'd rather we started ramming things down the Afghan's throats? Are you willing to go to war with the Afghan people in order to do that? Instead of the current situation where the Afghans have welcomed US troops (something that many idiots said was totally impossible), and are willing to fight our enemies (Taliban and Al Qaeda) using their own troops, you want us to go to war with the entire Afghan population? Are you willing to see US troops die to ram something down their throat, for marginal benefit? Or were you planning on simply carpet bombing the Afghan people into submission, for the same marginal benefit? The fact is the Afghan people have allowed freedom of speech for you to make your case, and they've allowed women to vote. You now have a means of getting the government you think the Afghans should have, via peaceful means. Regardless, the option of going to war with the Afghan people hasn't been taken away. Now is just not the right time to open such a war front.
Similarly, what's the beef with Iraq? Can you actually point to a single Iraqi law that you don't like? Once again, the US has pulled off the near-impossible. It has managed to convert a dictatorship into a democracy and have that democracy choose to not be an enemy of the US, despite decades of Saddam brainwashing the Iraqi people to hate the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have bravely stood up to fight enemies of America, and millions of Iraqis bravely defied terrorist threats to support the democracy that America brought, and you want to go to war with these people to ram something down their throat that will have essentially zero effect, in the absence of a single law you can point to?! Do you people smoke the same whacky weed that the Democrats do or what?
"not waging a war to truly defeat the enemies"
Hey moron, that war HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET. Before we go to war, we need to actually IDENTIFY THE FRIGGIN ENEMY. Unless you're planning on wiping out every Arab, every Muslim, and hey, just to be safe, every non-American, and hey, Democrats as well, and better make it whites as well, to cover those like Timothy McVeigh, well, you'll never win.
The fact is, we need badly needed EXPERIMENTAL DATA from Iraq, just to IDENTIFY the enemy. The data from Afghanistan was important, but not nearly as important as that from Iraq. Data from Iran is also important. We already have the data from Eastern Europe, and Russia. Data from the rest of the world is more-or-less available, except for probably North Korea and Cuba. So we basically have the ability to analyze who is hostile to America et al, and why.
"avoiding shrines and sacrificing troops"
First of all, the number of troops being lost in total is microscopic. The number of troops being lost due to shrine avoidance is microscopic microscopic. And what it buys us is the opportunity to get unblemished data. It is difficult for the Muslims in Iraq to say that America is there to destroy Islam when it's going to such obvious lengths to "respect" this death cult. So, they continue 
on their merry way oblivious to the fact that when the real war starts, they may be in for genocide. Jury's still out on that.
"blindly worshipping "democracy""
It's not being blindly worshipped. That is what is necessary in order to get accurate experimental data. Rigged polls or forcing things down people's throats would mean that we lose that data forever. The fact is we've managed to obtain this data, which will be invaluable for future war plans. And nothing at all has been lost. At any time you want to start forcing something down the throats of the Iraqi people, that option is available. Have you decided what you want to force down people's throats yet? There seems to be some disagreement on that. For example, Ann Coulter said "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
That's a reasonable start. You can look around and see that American Christians aren't cheering 9/11, so an obvious conclusion is "hey, if we convert them to Christianity, all will be fine". Unfortunately, Ann isn't so bright after all. She says "I'm still waiting to hear a better suggestion.". Well, Ann, the better suggestion was given to the world in message 666 on Sept 11, 2004. You, like most people, weren't listening, or failed to understand it, whatever. You see, the Christians of South America hate your guts, so an Arab form of South America isn't going to buy you much. It may buy you something, but not much. And it completely misses the point that there were atheists and Muslims who wanted to protect America. I personally have tried to protect America both as an atheist and as a Muslim. So your theory is crap.
However, you are right about a war to change the religion of the Middle East in order to protect America. But the war needs to eventually extend to South America, Africa etc as well. And it isn't ill-defined "Christianity" that needs to be spread, as an ill-defined version of it has already been spread to almost the entire South American continent. You instead need to spread message 666. Ok, if you're too stupid to do that, then fine, spread some form of Christianity to the Middle East, and it will at least get you closer to message 666, which is a good thing.
Regardless, when this religious war begins, that will be a real war. It won't be pretty. It will be bloody. However, the "data gathering" being done in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a real war. The real war has yet to begin, and may never even be waged. We're not ready to wage it yet. But Ann has correctly identified the scope. A religious war is required. Her mindless bigotry that the religion she was indoctrinated with is the only possible solution notwithstanding.
Regardless, the complete war, the least worst war strategy, has been outlined for several years now. When will the right wing wake up and actually wage it? Or at least support Bush who has, coincidentally or not, been following the least worst option already, even if the right-wing are too stupid to see that. Obviously the left are too stupid to figure out whether the enemy is people with beards chopping off heads or a guy who disagrees with the government-run health care. But given that the right-wing at least live in the real world, you'd think that they'd have the logic skills required to recognize a kick-arse war plan. Apparently not though.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 16:46