Pulix Delendum Est; Part I
Back in ancient times (October of 2001)
A Denizen of a discussion board let rip with:There are a number of people on this board who hold positions I passionately disagree
with. It is possible that I misunderstand what their positions are, so I hope they
will correct me if I have them wrong.
There are people who claim that the US should overthrow certain governments and
take no steps to install or aid a new government beyond overthrowing the new
government if the US doesn't like it. These people don't want to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan with US dollars, they don't
want to protect the new government, they just want to hold it responsible for
everything that happens in their country!
I think that is a foolish policy in _many_ _many_ ways. For one thing, International
opinion would be against overthrowing a new government that hasn't had the
history that Saddam did.
These people I mentioned say, "Screw international opinion, what can they do?"
Well, maybe by about the third time the US knocked off a government
because it didn't obey the US fast enough the rest of the world would start shifting
alliances. Perhaps Europe would even start to militarize.
I don't want to live in a WMD armed country that engages in wars of aggression and
that is what we would be if we followed that policy.
There are those who claim that the Iraqis have been indoctrinated into hating the
US, and that it would be impossible to change them. Well, Japan was an even
more alien culture, whose people hated, feared and despised our nation and our race, and
we re-wrote their Constitution. Further, the Japanese had a stronger military
tradition, had fanatic soldiers, and _still_ they were subdued.
Oh, but that might cost too much, some people say.
Well, get out of this country you cowardly vomitous piece of filth.
Yeah right, it might be cheaper to invade a country every two years or so, destroy
its infrastructure and civil institutions and leave them to warlordism and the
tender mercies of UN relief agencies. Yeah, it is much cheaper to destroy than to build. To be feared rather than
respected.
You Stalinist pieces of shit. Take your jingoistic fascism somewhere else you
amoral armchair mass murderers.
No, I take it back, you aren't cowards, just fundamentally _lazy_. Too lazy to
think up a way to rebuild the region into a form acceptable to the US but which
preserves their traditions. Too _stupid_ to come up with something like what
MacArthur did, in allowing the Japanese to keep their Emperor as a figurehead. And
worse still, absolutely confident that their cowardice, lazyness and stupidity
are _justified_, and that people who seek a better solution are misguided
at best and unpatriotic at worst.
As I said above, I am probably misinterpreting some peoples' positions.
Certainly no _reasonable_ person would support that kind of morally excreble
filth. Noone would so cheerfully destroy the moral reputation of the United
States for some illusionary safety. I say again: I would support war with Iraq _if_ I felt that there was the commitment to do it
_right_, and not let it slide into another savage Afghanistan.
And those _fools_ who think that regions which fall into barbarism aren't a threat
to us... Where the warlords and drug lords rule, terrorists will find recruits,
havens, money and weapons.
So instead of _occupying_ the territory and at least pretending to protect it
you would advocate the US _repeatedly_ invade it. So, the same level of commitment,
only it is less likely to work, will look worse to the rest of the world, and will
expose our troops to the same level of risk. Gee, win-win all around.
Class of 1987
Si vis pacem, paret bellum.
Your Host
"It's not the years,
it's the mileage."
Less Peaceful than it
appears
Ut wisi enim ad minim
veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion