Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Addiction to Kool-Aid

I recently read a letter to the editor in which the writer complained that the newspaper unfairly displayed photos of Iraqi “terrorist prisoners” allegedly being abused by the military while relegating a story about Iraq’s persistent efforts to hide its WMD to the back pages.

The article that the writer refers to was released by ABC News. The letter writer doesn’t mention the fact that the article does not say that Iraq possessed WMD when we invaded that country in 2003. The article doesn’t state that what Iraq possessed in the early 90s were actual WMD. It speaks of plans, programs and documents, but not actual weapons.

The letter writer also seems to be certain that everyone whom the American military detains is, indeed, a “terrorist”. The fact that the writer refers to the “terrorists” as “Iraqi terrorists” makes his accusation even more interesting.

It’s obvious that everyone held prisoner by the US military is not automatically guilty of supporting terrorism. The US has let hundreds of “prisoners” go free after holding them for months, even years at a time. Would the US ever set proven terrorists free?

From my perspective, most of the world considered Saddam Hussein, a few high-ranking government officials and the Iraqi Republican Guard the only terrorists in Iraq until the US invaded that country and invalidated what were once well protected Iraqi borders. The collapse of those borders was the main reason why such a vast number of terrorists were able to infiltrate into Iraq. These terrorists would otherwise have never been able to see the light of day in Iraq.

However, here’s the most important point, in my opinion.

Let’s pretend.

It’s 1965. America never invaded Vietnam.

The US and the USSR are the only nations which possess weapons of mass destruction. The two countries sign an agreement to be rid of WMD by 1967. A UN resolution is drawn up to support the agreement.

Each country agrees to allow UN inspectors to physically monitor its progress in destroying its WMD arsenal.

The USSR says that it suspects that America isn’t complying with the agreement or the UN resolution, even though UN inspectors have found no weapons in the US.

The Soviets demand that America immediately comply with the treaty and resolution. The US insists it is complying and continues to allow inspections.

Suddenly, the Soviets announce to the world that America has 48 hours to install a government “that can be trusted to comply with the UN resolution”. The Soviets say they will invade the US if this change in government doesn’t happen within that 48 hour time period.

In reality, America hadn’t gotten rid of its weapons and now knows that the USSR is going to invade it.

The US quickly moves its WMD to Canada for the purpose of hiding it from the invading Soviets.

The Soviets attack, overpower America, overthrow the government, capture LBJ and occupy the former USA.

Absurd, you say?

I recently read a letter to the editor in which the writer complained that the newspaper unfairly displayed photos of Iraqi “terrorist prisoners” allegedly being abused by the military while relegating a story about Iraq’s persistent efforts to hide its WMD to the back pages.

In light of the above scenario, why would Iraq move WMD to Syria or any other country?

What government, knowing it’s about to be invaded, would hide or move its weapons?

What government would opt to be overthrown?

What nation would opt to be occupied?

The illegal possession of controlled substances is against the law in the US. I suggest that whatever Kool-Aid The Regime’s supporters are drinking should be added to that list.

To friendship,
Michael

“He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.” - Sir William Drummond

3 comments:

taylor said...

Well put!

The article that you refer to reminds me impassioned rants that display staggering disregard for logic and facts.

According to, I think it's a guy named Dar Jamil (that's my phonetic spelling of his name)...a guy who writes from Iraq....not more than 5% of the insurgency is from out of country. 95% are Iraqis.

Peace and joy in the face of it all.

marathonman said...

this is what happens when governments do all they can to frighten dissenters. I feel bad for the person who wrote the letter, Michael. as you say he is brainwashed for sure. that’s because the current administration labels those who question anything it does as cowards.

how dare he question me, my family and my friends as cowards! it takes courage to speak out. especially against George W. Bush.

JtWalton said...

Do Americans remember the cold war? That was a war that wasn’t fought on a battle field. That was a war that threatened mutual annihilation. We have more nukes today to blow up the world many times over. The difference is that the Russians had just as many. Those nukes were pointed at each other 24/7, 365 days a year.

Did we tear down the Bill Of Rights or discard out systems of checks and balances when the threat was real? No we seemed on hell of a lot braver then.

We have soldiers in a land where people don’t want us and they really don’t like us. Our soldiers are getting killed or maimed for life protecting freedoms that Americans are willing to give up to be protected from a made up bogeyman.

How many Russians had their fingers on buttons that would blow us all to smithereens? A hell of a lot more Russians were ready to annihilate us and we them for many years and we had the technology to do it.

Now dumbya keeps crying wolf and scares the hell out of American gutless jellyfish because one rogue state might be able to put together one god damned bomb!

What happened to the bravery we showed during the Cold War? We weren’t hiding and watching bogus threat charts and we didn’t have a department of Homeland Security. That was the job of the Defense Department.

You’re right Michael. People need to get a grip! GWB is doing a job on too many empty heads.

I’ve got to come here more often. What you write makes so much sense!