Skip to main content

"We are not dealing with peaceful men."





And so it comes to this. Well really, what did you expect? Oh, you in the corner, the carping little ninnie who occasionally does an infomercial, STFU. For the rest....



Once upon a time, I was a cop. Among other things, I was a crisis (hostage) negotiator. Not that I really had to sit and perform The Real Deal, but lots of training, lots of practise, lots of scenarios. One of the training sessions was with the FBI, an agency that has learned a thing or two from failed negotiations (see Waco and/or Ruby Ridge). One of the things they learned was to resist the action imperative. That is, don't do something just because you feel that you must do something.



For many, that would appear to be the case with Iraq. We don't have to do anything, the reasoning goes, so why are we?



Well, the FBI was also careful to point out that sometimes matters require more than mere talk. You can't always talk that bank robber into giving up peacefully. You can't always talk that insane parent out of killing their own child. And you certainly can't always negotiate a peaceful settlement with terrorists, especially those whose primary aim in life is to see you in a grave. Which they can then use as an open air toilet just to remember the sweet sensation of watching you die.



No, these people are, ahem, difficult to negotiate with.



Negotiation pre-supposes good faith on both sides. No, correction. A successful negotiation pre-supposes good faith on both sides. In Iraq, Hussein negotiates with his fingers crossed. At best. At worse, his hands are under the table loading a pistol, getting ready to hand it to some useful idiot, who will then put the the business end of that bullet into your brain.



Everyone acknowledges that Hussein is that not-rare-enough creature, a true human monster. Do a Google search. Review the outrages of Saddam Hussein.



So why isn't everyone all for kicking the bastard out? I think the reasons are simple. Those who oppose action in Iraq are 1) anti-Bush, 2) anti-capitalism, 3) anti-American, and 4) have too much personal stock invested in Hussein's dictatorship. Amazingly, whenever you start a conversation with someone opposed to US action against Iraq, when you've pegged them into a corner with lots of reality slaps, their "argument" disintegrates into variations of a theme. Theme = "Well, Bush isn't really President anyway!"



So that's Number 1 with a bullet.



Number 2 is an objection to our nation's success. Jealous? More like anger. "Damnit," they seem to mutter, "in theory our Marxist-Socialist state should be the utopia of the world, rather than a degenerate sink hole of corruption and murder. It must be the fault of those damn capitalists. Death to the capitalists!"



Puh-leez! Did any of those notice that the "new Europe" being discussed are all former members of the Soviet bloc? That they lived under real and horrid dictators? That almost every single one of them is saying, "Yeah, kick that little bastard out!"



Number 3 is an extension of Number 2, but more focused. Some capitalist societies are all right, like France, because they suck so much money off their private industries that they can't survive without government subsidies (review any European industry that attempts to compete outside its own national borders; see as an example, Airbus International). In America, though, capitalism is a blood sport, so those bastards must be stopped! So obviously, again, those pesky Yankee dogs must die.



And Number 4 is the one that hurts them the most. Yes, Mary Jane, Gulf War II is about oil. It's about French interest in Iraqi oil. It's about Russian interest in Iraqi oil. The last thing it's about is Dubya's interest in any Iraqi oil, except to make sure that money made off that oil actually helps build the country, rather than a bunch of extravagent palaces that are grand excuses for hidden arsenals (at worse) or huge examples of a driving need for ego-boost (at best).



Gads, there are more reasons to plow that man under, and there are stupider stated "reasons" against doing so. But what I find fascinating, what I think expresses the issue so very clearly, is that a 12+ year cease fire has been violated since roughly, oh, day one of that cease fire. Hussein never surrendered. We agreed to stop shooting at him and his men if he agreed to live up to certain promises.



He never has.



Ergo, no more cease fire, and Gulf War II is actually the conclusion of Gulf War I, in much the same way that WW2 was actually the end of WW1 (and WW2 didn't end until the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that's history for another day). This whole sad affair with the United Nations reminds me of the League of Nations, which was supposed to prevent WW2 from ever happening. Hitler calmly rebuilt a huge military force, in flagrant violation of surrender terms from WW1, and all anyone sought was appeasement. A certain wine country built a Maginot Line, stood behind it, and ignored all treaty violations happening to the east. They became interested only when a German tank rumbled along the champs de'lyse. Damnit, ze are annoying ze flies!



So, no, I'd rather we not just sit around and wait until Hussein got a fly up his nether, and decided to scratch the itch by popping a Scud loaded with something unpleasant onto Israel. You know, that country he refers to -- to this day -- as "the Zionist entity." See how peaceful he is?



Or hands off to his buddy, Osama bin Hidin' (or one of his comrades), something equally nasty. Which in turn, because we are one big open country (thank God, and I don't really want to change it...much -- doh!) that Nasty Thing ends up in one US city or another.



So, let's all STFU, lock and load, and get to work.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We pause now for a minor rant…

“My car has a flat tire.” “You should buy a new car.” Every time I hear President Obama and other Democrats talking about “health care reform,” that’s what the conversation sounds like. A health care crisis is declared and the only solution is to replace the entire system. At most, around 15% of the American population is without health care insurance. Ignoring the fact that for most of them, this is a matter of choice, it also means that 85% are insured. And of that 85%, something like 70+% like their current coverage and don’t want the government to touch it. So for the vast majority, the current system works and works great. Yet, because of the minority for whom it allegedly does not...toss it all, start again. Admittedly, regardless of insurance coverage, it all costs too much, but again, the only accepted approach to controlling costs are to throw out everything and turn it all over to the government. Tactics that are proposed to address specific cost issues are not consid...
Post a Comment
Read more