This will be really short, because after the chaos of the holidays, I managed to either get the flu or food poisoning. So I'll have to update the other links on the blog later. I'll also spare you all the details. Suffice it to say Desitin is not just for a baby's ass.
There were plenty of asshats from which I could choose this week. Governor Paterson, for looking to someone with my government experience to step into Hillary's shoes. Governor Blago, for obvious reasons. Governor Schwarzenegger, for doing his best to destroy Caleefornia. The moonbat asshat that tried getting money out of banks in Colorado with gas bombs and incoherent notes.
I was also looking at Bill Richardson, who withdrew himself from consideration for a cabinet post, but he proved himself a non-asshat by behaving in such a non-Blago way.
But I'm going to give Hamas the Asshat of the Week award.
Now to clarify, they are far more than asshats. They are terrorists and should be killed. Every damned last one of them.
But they can share the award with all the asshats who are screaming for peace now that Israel is tired of 20 rockets a day blowing up civilians and has finally decided to start with the bombing (and incursionating). Personally, I don't give a shit one way or another myself, but this need to demand peace from the aggrieved because they have the bigger guns, even when they were not the aggressor, is asshattery of the highest degree. These pisswads would have said we should sue for peace after Pearl fucking Harbor.
Peace is not the absence of war, but the absence of threat. And if you keep poking a big animal, they're eventually going to kick back.
Okay, I'm fevering again, so it's sleep time.
16 comments:
Yikes! Sorry to hear you're sick. I figured something was wrong.
You've just got to let it run its course--oh. Bad image.
PS. The whole Middle East is a geographical Asshat.
The Israelis and the Arabs are both Semetic people separated by religion.
Pathetic.
Every time I see video footage of all the pro-Hamas supporters parading here in the States, I think to myself, "The world has gone upside down."
Peace is not the absence of war, but the absence of threat.
What I don't like about this statement is that it leaves me wondering whether "potential threat" qualifies as "threat".
If it does, then you're heading down the "preemptive strike" path, where anything that is classed as a "potential threat" can be attacked at will under the guise of being a "preemptive strike".
Virtually everything, in the right context, can be considered a "potential threat". The air you breathe is a potential threat.
I would put forth that "peace" is not the absence of "threat" but the ability to evaluate conditions accurately and deal with them in a rational, adult, responsible manner to ensure the greatest amount of safety and security possible.
There will always be "threats" real and perceived, potential and actual. We cannot allow what has been happening to happen again. It's time to take an honest look at ourselves as a nation, sans rose coloured glasses and false pride, and make changes where changes are long overdue.
"Preemptive strike"
Let's say I bought a gun and have the permits and so forth to legally own it and the training necessary to use it in a proper and safe manner.
Now I'm walking down the street with my gun, because I have a concealed permit. It's getting kind of dark and I'm all by myself.
I see a man walking up to me quickly and purposefully. He's big and looks kind of scary to me, so he becomes a 'potential threat' and I pull out my gun and shoot him dead. It's not till he hits the sidewalk that I can see that he was holding some Watchtower magazines he was distributing to people on the street. So now I've killed a JW preacher because he was a a 'potential threat' that required my 'preemptive strike'.
No sarcasm about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using a JW in this context. I could have used one of the devotees except more than likely they'd be dressed in a way you could identify them.
Now, you will most likely argue that this isn't a direct correlation to the situation because the man hadn't made any statement or previous indication of threat. All right.
I'm in the schoolyard and just had a fight with some slutty chick who thought I was eyeballing her slackass ugly boyfriend. He comes up on the situation and is really pissed because I gave her a righteous asskicking. He starts yelling at me and saying he's gonna kick my ass and so on, and reaches into a pocket. I instantly think he's going for a gun because he's been yelling at me and so I pull out my legally concealed weapon and shoot him in the head. There's a pack of cigarettes in his hand as it falls out of his pocket.
But I was just striking preemptively against a perceived threat, your Honour!
That's why you aren't allowed to shoot someone on your property until they make an unlawful entry into your home.
Because you can pretty much go on a rampage if you go around preemptively striking perceived threats.
The kick is up... the kick is good! Point made.
Shaw: You've just nailed the reason why I laugh any time a president promises to work for peace in the middle east.
BTW, (TMI moment) I feel better, but it's still running its course. :)
AOW: Doesn't bother me. Just reminds me of the rank asshattery of too many of our own people.
Saty: A 'potential threat' is a threat. That alone doesn't justify lobbing bombs, but it means at least loading the plane and making jokes about starting the bombing. Then the 'potential threat' has to shit or get off the pot.
As for your example, I'm guessing you've never gone through conceal and carry training, pistol training, a hunters safety course, or even read something very clear about the real responsibilities of wielding a deadly weapon or you wouldn't have tried to use this sadassed example.
To clarify: you only draw a weapon on a person if you are willing to kill them dead.
If you've received any defensive training, you learn to not put finger on trigger if you're threatened but not sure.
And you refer to a split-second decision as compared to motivations for military action, which are rarely split-second, except on the battlefield itself, and that's with in rules of engagement.
So unless you can provide an example we magically perceived a threat and just started shooting, try again.
So the kick is blocked and the player that blocked it is getting ready to insert the ball into a specific orifice from whence the example came. (more TMI: this would solve my current physiological issue (see above)). :)
we magically perceived a threat and just started shooting
Didn't we just discuss this? We received intel that there were WMDs and then we received further intel that the first WMD intel wasn't accurate and then we magically forgot that we ever heard about the second intel discussing that the first intel wasn't accurate, and then we made more magic and elaborated on the first inaccurate intel and then presto kaboolie, we launch into a war that the whole rest of the world thought was a dumbass idea.
Where's Cris Angel when you need him?
This 'potential threat' came from bullshit intel that we knew was intel and we concealed that information to garner popular support for an illegal war that would otherwise have been, and was once the hysteria wore off and rational thought kicked in, wildly unpopular.
The 'potential threat' thing is bullshit. It's a bullshit, chickenshit way to excuse us being tyrannical fucks that want to walk all over everyone because we think we're better than they are.
Human beings are an actual threat to this planet and even if you think global warming is a 'liberal plot' (which reveals nothing but the paranoid mentality of those who espouse that idea), you have to admit we are a potential threat to the planet. Those who continue to insist otherwise need to rethink their stance on the 'potential threat'/'preemptive strike' thing.
This reminds me of that time when Bettis plowed right through Brian Urlacher.
Safety! Two points.
Saty: I know we discussed this, but since that was in a chat, not here, let me clarify.
The intel that led us to Iraq was not the best, but was also being influenced by Saddam, who was doing his damnedest to obscure the truth. Both Clinton and Bush had the same intel, and the same idea of the danger of Saddam. He was known to use chemical weapons on his own people. And most importantly, we had the legal backing of an assload of UN resolutions and a coalition of many countries behind us.
That is not to say the Bush administration was totally right, but they were most definitely not just inventing a war.
Hopefully President Obama will, when the time comes, be unflinching in opening the next front in the war on terror. Because it's either going to be Iran or "Pok-e-ston" that the next fight will be. Let's hope it's not Iran.
The reason preemption came about is because terrorists don't build up massive armies and then come across the border shooting. The murderous cocksuckers use our freedoms and our culture to sneak around and plot shit in secret. Then they kill lots of civilians. Or they sit in their areas and shoot rockets from hospitals and mosques into civilian areas. This means they have no rules. While we, as a justified and (ideally) righteous people, should not abandon all rules to destroy them and kill all of them, we should not be constrained by the rules of war as they currently exist.
While we do not target civilians, some will die because these cowardly bastards will put their children in as school full of rockets just to get the dead children photo-op. They will take journalists, saw their fucking heads off on camera, then ship it up to the raghead media, which will show all the screaming and gurgling just to feed the killing frenzy. And they will do anything it takes to destabilize and destroy any country that doesn't embrace they're ass-backwards, evil, goddless religion that hijacks Allah to justify genocide.
And we're "tyrannical fucks that want to walk all over everyone because we think we're better than they are"!?!?!?!?
So a little preemption to stop soulless fucks like them is A-OK by me.
And I think that's a little like Lawrence Taylor all over Joe Theisman.
*crack*
I think that leg's a little broke.
Oh, I forgot to address your side trip into Globaloney. So since your ass just got carried off the field....
I don't deny that man can do some significant damage to many parts of the planet. However, I have clear philosophical reasons why I distrust the religious belief of GW. First of all, it's been touted as an absolute answer, as creation was before the Scopes monkey trial and evolution is in modern academia. That happened many years ago, when the patron saint of climate change, Algore, spake it: "The debate is over." Hello?
Second, the agenda to "combat the crisis" is targeted at the Western world but gives China and the third world a pass.
Third, it empowers the government with more and more power over us. And that is never good.
we should not be constrained by the rules of war as they currently exist.
Sounds like the Bush admin to me. Make up your own rules to justify your own actions.
And there was a lot of dissent from the rest of the civilized world against this war. Just about everyone except the US government thought it was a dumbass idea.
And the reason terrorists don't build up massive armies and march in is because they don't have the resources. George Washington was practically the inventor of guerilla warfare. The English were appalled at his lack of adherence to the established rules of war as they were then. It was terrorism, but because it was ours, it was good, right? Adapt, improvise, and overcome says the USMC. If you can't buy a bomb, build one.
I'm not defending terrorists. I'm saying that the definition of terrorism is relative depending on what side of the grenade you're on.
And we sneak across plenty of borders and start shit and plant shit and do things that no one would ever admit, but we don't call it terrorism.. we call it 'covert activities'.
We do a lot of the same things that we condemn other countries for doing, but when we do it it's all right. And that's why we're tyrannical fucks who walk all over everyone because we think we're better than they are.
Intrinsically better.
Personal foul: facemask. Fifteen yards, repeat first down.
There's a reason I mention intentional civilian casualties. Because it's a whole lot of difference shooting soldiers (as Washington did) and killing a few thousand civilians.
And I didn't say make up the rules. You lose the ones that make it impossible to fight the enemy at hand. Washington did what was necessary to fight a superior enemy. the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan did the same to beat the Soviets. Of course, they were fanatics, became the Taliban, and turned over a terrorist leaf, but that's when they became a disease to be cut out.
Again, there's a difference between targeting civilians, and collateral damage, especially now when precision is possible. Now while I'm not going to say we never did anything wrong, that's not our policy, and we punish those who cross the line.
So the asinine attempt to draw moral equivalence between Washington and terrorist sons of bitches is ridiculous. But that's how far you have to go to tear down America, casting it as the seed of evil. So give it up. Because I surspect you're going to be surprised how little of the current policy Obama will change now that Iraq's a victory under most definitions, he doesn't need reelected for four years, and he's gotten the security briefings that Bush has had.
On that note, let's just watch GITMO disappear... from the news, that is.
Personal foul for you as well, 15 yards for me, penalties cancel each other out, and you're still gimp from the leg.
I bet you never read that report on Gitmo that I gave you, either.
Two minute warning.
No, I haven't. The whole Christmas chaos. I'll read it by the time the Code Pinkos start screaming about Obama's failure to close GITMO (should be in late January).
Of course, I always thought that if they close GITMO, they should just march the prisoners to the United States.
(and yes, I know that means a march through the Gulf of Mexico. That's the idea.)
Time out. Must sleep.
Now while I'm not going to say we never did anything wrong, that's not our policy, and we punish those who cross the line.
Not our policy? This is a nice way of saying 'oh, we surely didn't know those bad things were happening and we surely have it on our books that those bad things aren't allowed and if we ever catch those baaaaaaad bad men who did those baaaaaaaaaaad bad things we'll surely give them a good whuppin.'
I have two words for that whole scenario: plausible deniability.
You HAVE to have rules like that 'on the books', ESPECIALLY when you do things like that. Otherwise you look like a... terrorist.
And I didn't say make up the rules. You lose the ones that make it impossible to fight the enemy at hand.
Same thing in a different shirt.
So the asinine attempt to draw moral equivalence between Washington and terrorist sons of bitches is ridiculous.
What I said was that the definition of terrorism is relative to which side of the grenade you're on. We do an awful lot of awful shit.. we just don't do it on camera (except at Abu Dhabi). We break international rules of war and our own internal laws when we torture people and leave them incarcerated for years without trial under conditions so bad as to induce clinical insanity. Of course, we go back and change the laws to make it all okay. So it's not really illegal or bad, you see, anymore.
That's sort of like the Vatican pronouncing for eons that eating meat on a Friday will send you straight to the ninth circle of hell and then turning around and saying, no, no, it's all right, go ahead and enjoy that steak.
I never said America was the seed of evil. I said we're not the shining orb of All That Is Good And Righteous that we are continually told we are and fanatically believe we are. We're not morally superior. We're better at covering shit up and we have more powerful PR.
That's all.
Touchback.
Fine, you assume that we are, under the surface, we're the equivalent of terrorists in someone's eyes. But name the last time we blew up civilians just to kill civilians. And we didn't then prosecute the people we sent in there.
We're not morally superior. We're better at covering shit up and we have more powerful PR.
Well, this is where we're going to have to disagree. But we need to temper our moral superiority with respect for the rights of other countries to be what they are.
In this, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
That's sort of like the Vatican pronouncing for eons that eating meat on a Friday will send you straight to the ninth circle of hell and then turning around and saying, no, no, it's all right, go ahead and enjoy that steak.
Actually, they still ban the meat on Fridays during Lent. But you don't go to Hell for infractions. Maybe an hour and a half in Heck's lobby. But that's my Holy Mother Church for you. :)
I remember Fridays in grade school when they'd come and check what you had for lunch and God forbid your mother forgot it was Friday and made baloney.. they took it away, made you a cheese sandwich and sent a note home.
Never had that problem. I usually got in trouble for something else, or was eating like a snake with a paper ass.
Long story, will get touched on in a future post.
Post a Comment