January 17, 2003

And Your Point is What,

And Your Point is What, Exactly?

My recent rant about Brian Eno and his lament about an America gone astray after 9/11 prompted a couple thoughtful comments and one bird-poop-in-the-night link drop. I can handle anonymous comments. If someone reads my blog and doesn't agree, and they want to leave a comment without identifying themselves, fine, go ahead. This is America, so say what you want. You'll still be a giant chicken.

What irritated me about the phantom link dropper was that he/she (screw the correct grammar, I'm saying "they") dropped a link of which I was already fully aware: http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

To appease the stealthy commenter, I'll even give you the full gist of the site. Quite simply, it's a purely unscientific poll conducted by Time Europe asking "Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" You're given three choices: North Korea, Iraq, or the United States. Daintily Dirty has already offered up her own critique of the poll, and I highly recommend giving her a read for an differing view than what you'll get here. The numbers have shifted somewhat since her critique but, overwhelmingly (82.1 percent), respondents voted the United States. What a shock. Yawn.

Again, I have no idea who dropped the link, but I'm envisioning a weary Frenchman, sitting in front of his pink iMac, sipping a glass of wine, thinking, "Ah, take zis little bit of proof, you war hungry crazy American" *pause to puff thoughtfully on a cigarette* "Zose Americans are all ze same. Don't zey see how much ze rest of the ze world hates zem?"

You know what? The Time Europe poll is right. The world would be so much better off without America. So, let's disband into 50 separate countries and see how quickly the world unravels. Okay, let's not even be that radical, let's just completely disband our military, you know, everything. Bring our soldiers home from abroad, pull back from the nasty DMZ in Korea, pull up stakes all around Asia, and just let Europe and the world police itself entirely. The first thing you can expect is a pretty explosive situation in Israel, and a renewed "re-unification effort" on the part of the now nuclear-capable North Koreans. Of course, China would look the other way on that one because it would be busy re-establishing its hold on Taiwan. Unrestricted and unwatched terrorist groups would also be completely free to resume their attack on the morally collapsed Western infidels.

Actually, none of that would happen, because some European country, probably Great Britain, would have to step in to fill the void. Then, suddenly, everyone would be miffed at those no good Britons and their busy body policing efforts. I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but really, what options do they have? With the world getting smaller every day, we can't afford to sit on our hands. And really, the rest of the world can't afford the United States sitting on its hands either, no matter how much it may complain and say we're the biggest threat to world peace. The irony is, we're also the most likely entity to bring about world peace.

Perhaps Time Europe could asked an equally skewed question and put it in poll format. Namely, ask the general world population if Iraq would be better off without Saddam, or if North Korea would be better off without Kim Jong Il. Chances are, the vast majority of respondents would answer "Yes." *pause to puff thoughtfully on a cigarette* "But zey should not be forced out by military action. Let zere own people rise up and overthrow zere governments."

Newsflash people: Coups don't happen very often, and for a very simple reason. Dictators have a pretty nasty habit of decimating their own populations to retain power. Sure, Iraqis could take to the streets en mass chanting for Saddam's head, but it would be short lived in the face of tanks rolling toward them popping off rounds loaded with sarin gas. These are people who are trying to raise families and live lives. They're not about to foolishly believe they can overthrow Saddam without some sort of help (click here for pictures of help).

America isn't out to slaughter civilians. America isn't out to establish a global empire. America isn't just picking random fights. In the wake of 9/11, we've just realized that the world does need to change, and it's foolish, to say nothing of dangerous, to sit back and think problems will just take care of themselves. Because they don't. The Western world, not just America, has very real enemies, and they're not enemies who understand or play by the rules to which we in the civilized world have grown accustomed.

Conduct all the useless biased polls you want. The cold hard fact is the world needs the U.S., and it needs us to play hard occasionally. That's not arrogance, it's just a fact.

Posted by Ryan at January 17, 2003 04:16 PM

Party Pocker - Poker

Posted by: Party Pocker at October 19, 2004 04:13 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!