12/08/2006

SCROTUM FACES DO IRAQ

Iraq Study Group and stuff......it seems that most people think that it is the duty of bloggers to attack anyone with whom the blogger disagrees, usually by using the most obscene epethets in the language. It's as if everyone went to Yale so they could use the word "motherfucker" in a sentence---using it twice in a sentence is Masters Degree stuff. So it goes that one must call members of the Iraq Study Group, the following, and in no particular order: assholes, shitheads fags, pricks, cunt faces, pieces of shit, communists, Hitler lovers, scrotum lips, feminist pricks, and so on before trashing their work. Keep in mind that the trashing has rules. You just don't call a guy a cocksucker with out a descriptive word in front and this word must diminish each person. The tried and true way to introduce incompetence, sloth, and other stuff is to preface the obscene noun by words like traitorous, liberal, surrender monkey, feminist, spineless and so on. So Jim Baker becomes the "surrender monkey and well known cocksucker, James Baker," Lee Atwater becomes "the weak kneed scrotum faced, Lee Atwater" and so on and so forth.

You're not supposed to know that they are all guilty of the crime of Public Service---they got paid, yes---and it assumed that everyone who has ever done Public Service is a urine drinking shit licker.

I'm taking another tack, I just think that each of them did the very best that they could, there is no money in the deal, no political advancement, nothing but an attempt to "solve" what has become an impossible problem.

Here's my brief analysis of the report: First, what the hell is new in the report? We are supposed to train more Iraqis, let Iraqis handle their own affairs, have elections, and try to get help from people in the area. Two suggestions: negotiate with Iran, and negotiate with Syria are a formula for total disaster around the world, but I assume all of you know that.

I look at the report as an admission by some well meaning and bright people that we're fucked UNDER PRESENT POLICIES. Left out are the unmentionables: kill Sadir and his entire "army," kill everyone that shows his face in Sunniville, when we kill an insurgent or terrorist we wrap the body in a pig and leave it on display for four days. In other words we have to do something that will say there is a huge penalty for fucking with us. Nothing like that in the report, so we must assume that nobody discussed it.

The entire Arab world respects nothing but force. It has been this way since 700 AD and who the hell are we to try and change it?

2 comments:

Old Grouch said...

"[W]e have to do something that will say there is a huge penalty for fucking with us. Nothing like that in the report, so we must assume that nobody discussed it."

And why not?
Where is the "outside the box" thinking in the report? Yes, it's an admission of failure of the present policies. Its authors have done us a major disservice by not clearly laying out the consequences and then exploring possibilities BEYOND the "present policy." Those guys are politically immune. They missed a major opportunity for some plain speaking.

Anonymous said...

Howie,

You failed to mention the most dubious aspect of the Baker report: the Israelis are supposed to make concessions in exchange for Iran and Syria not making more trouble in Iraq.

--david.davvenport.1@netzero.com