August 01, 2003

And Now, A Much Needed Fisking Of A Fatally Flawed Rant

Via A Small Victory, I was pointed to this little bit of piss and vinegar spewed forth by one Hesiod. Let us commence with the dissection:

TIME FOR IRAQ-WAR LIARS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE: Do you REALLY care about human rights and deposing a "brutal dictator, or are you just lying your pathetic asses off about it to cover up for your otherwise bankrupt political and moral ideology?

Thanks for asking. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do care about human rights and deposing a "brutal dictator." And, my otherwise bankrupt political and moral ideology actually consists of overflowing coffers. What I feel Hesiod was doing here, rather than asking a question, was screaming into the wind because he's lost patience with everything that has gone right for the Bush administration. Like him or loathe him, you have to admit the President has the political Midas touch going for him right now.

"Top U.S. arms negotiator John Bolton described North Korean leader Kim Jong-il on Thursday as a tyrannical dictator who lived like royalty while jailing thousands and keeping many hungry in a "hellish nightmare."

I think we all know that answer to that question, don't we?

You will make all kinds of excuses for NOT invading and deposing Kim Jong Il.

"He's got nuclear weapons."

"He can wipe out Seoul."

"He's just bluffing."

"He's bottled up by South Korea and China."


A ham-fisted segue into a rant to be sure, but I'll play along. Hesiod's "blah. . .blah. . .blah" dismissal belies the fact that he himself gave very telling reasons why we're walking on political eggshells in North Korea. Whereas we went after Saddam BEFORE he had nukes, Kim Jong Il apparently very much has them. You don't amass 100,000 troops for an invasion of NK and not expect some sort of nuclear problem. No one, for a second, thinks Kim Jong Il is bluffing, however, which is why we're taking a far more cautious approach. No, he's not bottled up by South Korea, but he sure as hell is bottled up by China. If old Kim keeps up his rhetoric, it's only a matter of time before China knocks on his door telling him to keep his voice down. But, let's see where Hesiod is going with this.

The bottom line is, you don't care about human rights abuses. You never cared about human rights abuses. And you never WILL care about human rights Iraq, or anywhere else.

It's a figleaf. A beard. A phony affectation of human concern...solely adopted for rhetorical purposes. [And Lord knows, it's never manifested itself with respect to the majority of Palestinians, among others].

Okay, so if I gather Hesiod correctly here, his beef is with human rights or something, even though he's taking his own sweet time getting to the point. Of course, as with any truly bleeding heart humanitarian, Hesiod is apparently in love with the Palestinian cause, because the Palestinians are such an oppressed and subjugated people. And they're such nice and stable people, who send their children off to camp, and even show them how to use guns and bombs. Ah, but let's allow Hesiod to continue with whatever it is he's trying to get to.

So...I'd appreciate it if you lying sacks of shit would stop PRETENDING you care about the Iraqi people, when clearly you never did, and still don't.

Okay, so, before getting to whatever point he's trying to get to, he wants to call me a lying sack of shit first and make broad generalizations about who I do and do not care about. I'll allow that, although I'd sure like it if he maybe would, I don't know, get to the fucking point.

Now, I know the response from the Bush Fedayeen will be that I'm some sort of a hypocrite on this issue.

Let me address that little canard right now.

I am AGAINST military action to overthrow Kim Jong Il. I think, from a practical standpoint, its too late to take that kind of action.

Oh good, then we agree on something, although I'd still like to see a point. Hesiod should really start taking some sort of medication to help with his literary ADD.

I think that North Korea, however, desperately needs our attention. We should be shipping food there, regardless of whether or not it tends to prop up that brutal son of a bitch. The people are starving in the millions, and letting them starve to effectuate a pissing match between George W. Bush and Kim Jong Il is not humane.

Yes, because that's how you deal with a braying meglomaniacal leader with an arsenal of nukes issuing daily threats: you send him food. You appease him. You stroke his demented little ego. In Hesiod's world, sending food to NK automatically means the starving masses would get that food, rather than the swollen ranks of the country's military. That way, when they storm across the 38th parallel, at least they'll be well fed.

I DO think that negotiating with the North Koreans, bilaterally, is the only way to diffuse the current crisis. We really have no choice, at this point, thanks to the diplomatic bungling of the Bush administration.

Oh, good, bilaterally, perhaps with the French. Crisis, indeed. The moment that NK head case Kim Jong Il actually burns out his last functioning brain cell and initiates a nuclear attack, then I'd call it a crisis. Somewhere around here, I'm sure Hesiod has some sort of point. I'll keep looking.

As for Iraq, I have expressed my views on that topic quite often. My message to the people of Iraq before the war was, "I feel you pain, but U.S. national interests and strategic concerns take precedence over your suffering."

Who is this guy, Bill Clinton? He feels their pain? Well then, he must have been dangling upsidedown while Uday beat the soles of his feet with a baseball bat.

Sorry to say it, but that's how I felt. And you know what? I'm not the least bit embarrassed or apologetic about it. Accuse me of endorsing the murder of Iraqis all you makes no difference to me. It's nothing but mindless, desperate lashing out, as far as I'm concerned.

A telling paragraph, that, because it totally exposes a fatal flaw in his still pointless logic. For Hesiod, you see, killing is only wrong if the U.S., and more specifically, Bush and company, are responsible. The killing of Iraqis by and Iraqi leader is okay, so long as U.S. intervention isn't on his conscience. I would call Hesiod's logic hypocritical, but that's too nice of a word.

But, now that we've gone and made a mess of things for the United States long-term national interests, I think we should limit the damage as much as possible by internationalizing the reconstruction and security of Iraq as quickly as we can.

If that means turning administration of Iraq over to the United Nations, until Iraqis can take over their own government, then so be it.

Ah yes, the United Nations, that bastion of international goodwill; I'm sure they're just what Iraq needs. After all, the U.N. came up with and oversaw the successful oil for food program that allowed Saddam to build all those opulent palaces, while at the same time giving the Ba'athists an invaluable tool for keeping tabs on the Iraqi people. Yep, let's hand things over to the U.N., where the motto is "We Sure Mean Well, But Damn We're Corrupt."

If our REAL motivation [remember, that's what you are all claiming now] was to "free the Iraqi people" from a brutal dictator, that means we should respect their aspirations, fully, and cede control of Iraq to THEM within 1 year. That doesn't just mean we have a bunch of elections, and still keep over 100,000 troops in country maintaining security. That means,...we get the fuck OUT. Or at least drastically reduce our troop contingent, and turn over security operations to international forces under the auspices of the UN.

Okay, that was about the most bone-headed paragraph ever penned. What Hesiod fails to grasp is that roughly 17 percent of the Iraqi people want coalition forces entirely out of Iraq, while 65 percent think they should stay until the job is complete. The short-sighted folks in the world, of which Hesiod is a card-carrying member, can't wrap their minds around a long-term commitment because they've never seen a long-term commitment. The rebuilding of Europe and Asia after WWII, for example, were long-term commitments. And again with the U.N. To the Hesiods of the world, everything can be fixed by the U.N. Instead, here's an idea: let's keep our troops in-country, clean up the rabble that think Saddam and Ba'athists were great, take down a few moronic terrorist fighters sneaking across the borders to fight, establish a new governmental model, rebuild the living shit out of their country making it a Middle East ideal, and do all of that without the U.N., and then get the fuck OUT. That's a better idea.

I know a few of you wackos still think we invaded Iraq to turn it into a shining example for the rest of the "Arab world" but I'm sorry to say that it will have no legitimacy, whatsoever, unless we (as I said) get the fuck out.

You see, in Hesiod's mind, after a country invades another country, obliterating its infrastructure and governmental system, that country should pull up stakes and leave them all alone to fend for themselves, which is more or less what they'd have to do if you let the esteemed U.N. take care of things. Hesiod is what we in the real world would call "a rabid isolationist." He doesn't remotely understand the world, and he doesn't want to. He just wants to blame somebody for it.

Any government in Iraq, no matter how it is chosen, will not be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people, or anyone else in the Arab world, so long as we are backing them up with U.S. military might.

Unless, say, the Iraqi people conduct an election, an honest to goodness election, free from the fear and intimidation of the Ba'athists. And, really, who gives a flying fuck if any other country in the Arab world save Iraq views the government as "legitimate?" Oooh, Syria doesn't see the Iraqi government as legitimate. I'm sure they'll lose a of sleep over that.

Moreover, the strong possibility exists that the U.S., via its Iraq "Governing council" stooges, will make the Ba'ath party, and fundamentalist Islamic parties "illegal." Thus, aping the autocratic behavior of such states as Egypt and Algeria. Way to send a message, guys!

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a whole bunch of people in Iraq who are against banning the Ba'ath party. Maybe Saddam would raise a stink, but that's about it. Actually, it is a way to send a message, and a good one. Namely, "sword weilding mullahs calling for jihad against the Jews and those who support them are not allowed in the Iraqi government." Seems like a good governmental mandate to me.

This will have two effects:

1) It will completely undermine our whole "we believe in democracy and freedom" argument.

2) It will make those two parties, as odious as they are, into the INSTRUMENTS of organized opposition in U.S. endorsed political parties and officials.

1) Banning Ba'athists and Islamic fundamentalists would ensure democracy by keeping those oppressive pukes from turning the country back into a realm of fear and hate and stagnation.

2) Yeah, just like the KKK has organized relevance here in the U.S. Honestly, Hesiod could use a major whack over the head with a Clue X Four.

Now, you may say that we have no real choice in the matter, and cannot allow the Ba'athists and the Fundamentalists to gain political power in Iraq.

Yes, actually, I just did say that. Thank you for the validation.

You know what? I agree with you. And folks like me have been pointing out this problem since BEFORE the war. But, as I said, we have made our bed, and now we have to lie in it.

What you just saw here was some intense back-pedalling followed by the most pathetic resignation. EVER. This whole thing has read like some whacko with a machete slicing at the air with no real target in view.

There are no real "good" options, only ones that do less damage than others.

So...from now on, I suggest we have two courses of conduct before us: We either do things the right way, or the Bush way.

So, there you have it folks: after all this searching for a point, we finally, FINALLY get to it. Namely, Bush is always wrong. Way to construct a totally nothing argument, Hesiod. Way. To. Go.

The Force is weak with this one. Unlike Tawny Roberts, who makes a Force strong in my pants. Or Tyra Banks, for that matter.

Posted by Ryan at August 1, 2003 04:56 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!