11.15.2006

Who's Responsible for This War?

Here's an interesting take on who is ultimately responsible for the war. The kicker comes on the second page, so make sure you get there. The sad thing is, he's totally right. I've been against this war from the beginning, and to see people coming out against it now is a relief, but also a goddamned shame.

It pisses me off most of all that these morons wanted war three years ago, but weren't prepared to commit. Meanwhile, our healthy boys and girls are getting their various body parts handed to them in a bag because we can't decide whether or not it's okay to kill a child in order to win a battle.

Let me tell you, if you don't think it's okay, then you're not ready for war. I wasn't ready to murder a child for whatever Saddam was doing over there, and I spoke out (quietly, but consistently) against it from day one.

But I've also said, if we've committed to war, then let's wage war. I mean, fucking wage it. Do it. Commit to killing whoever and whatever it takes to take control of the situation and end it. Because that's what war is. War isn't about nice. It isn't about making friends along the way. War isn't about diplomacy. Diplomacy is about diplomacy. War is about saying, well, we've tried time-outs and groundings, and you still won't behave. Now I'm going to have to spank your ass. Boom. Do it and be done with it.

So read the article, then shake your fists at the assholes who let it happen because they were to scared to voice their opinions with any courage or strength of character.

Because nothing's changed. All the same arguments for war are there. Nothing's different than 3 years ago, except the number of dead Americans.

Well, okay, we got Saddam, but if that's all we were after, we shoulda saved the effort and just dropped a monster bomb on his palace and have been done with it. No, we went in to beat terrorists and bring democracy and all that crap. And that's not finished, not by a long shot.

We knew going in that our boys and girls were going to die. If you really thought it would only be one or two or six or twenty, then you're an idiot. It's a war. What's the maximum acceptable number? 3,000? One for every life lost in the 9/11 attacks? Because, yes, we've now lost almost as many people in trying to stop future terrorist attacks as we have in terrorist attacks themselves. I'm pretty sure that's ironic, but I'm too tired to make much hay of it. So, take that to bed with you, stick it under your pillow, and hope the irony fairy comes by and gives you a quarter, because that would be the only good to come of it, I'm pretty sure.

Now that we're there, this would be the worst time to pull out. If we pull out and leave Iraq high and dry, we will have truly lost. They knew from the beginning we'd leave. They knew that we didn't have the stomach for a long, drawn out war. They knew that if they kept throwing their human bombs at us, we'd eventually take our ball and go home, and they could go back to throwing bombs at each other which is all they really want to do in the first place. They'd have gotten what they wanted, which means they win.

And, once the Iraqi government collapses into anarchy, followed by another elected oppressive Taliban-esque regime, and they start causing problems for us again, we will have gotten exactly the opposite of what we wanted, plus thrown away a lot of our future, in the form of money and people, to not get it. Which means we lose.

And then, with that boost of confidence, see if they don't start throwing their human bombs at us over here.

posted by risser at 23:42

Nobody has anything to say.