Note to Iranian government....
Take a hint! Our president has a particular perspective on crazy, cooky terrorist-supporting states and whether or not they should have nuclear weapons. You are next on the list. Bush won't rule out military action against Iran if they don't get a clue
posted by Scott Klajic @ 1:22 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
the US is getting its ass kicked in a country it presumed to "liberate" by force and "democratize" by force (democracy, let alone the infliction of it on someone else, is illegal in this country, which any true conservative knows), and you're here talking trash about trying it again! that's rich.
if you think iraq is bad (and you probably don't if you're so homoerotic as to refer to bush the nimrod as "our president"), you ain't seen nothin'. don't you war yappers learn from your own mistakes, if not history?
first rule of warfare, whether one-on-one or larger: never EVER mess with a man who doesn't care if he lives or dies -- especially if he has that attitude because you put it in him. check these terms: CIA iran, 1953, shah, hostages, iraq, war, hussein, bin laden, blowback.
oh, you looney tunes president worshipers. you'll have us all killed if it kills ya. here's a president you should worship more:
"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."
i'm eager to hear you say that's BS. because either it is or you are. my money's on you.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for the comment.
Scott.
Saltypig-
I'm sure you meant this to be a well-placed jab at Our President-
"if you think iraq is bad (and you probably don't if you're so homoerotic as to refer to bush the nimrod "
Thanks for giving Our President such a lofty accolade as the term 'Nimrod'. To liken George W. Bush, your President, to a great hunter of long ago is commendable given our current campaign in the middle east. Who would have guessed by the balance of your screed that you really do like ---Our President--. Well, one can't hide one's nature for long I suppose. I welcome you on your long recovery Sir.
Ok, now I have a little more time to give this post the response it begs for.
First of all, I am not sure exactly what you supppose I should respond to here. There are the names, listed here in order as "homoerotic," "war yappers," and "loney toons Bush worshipper." When I receive such a message I have several choices before me and I choose to give a lesson that one could learn from a logic class in college, or simply by being a normal, thinking human. When person "a" makes a claim or applies some ad homonym label to person "b," the burden of proof rests squarely upon person "a." Otherwise person "b" is reduced to defending himself by trying to proof a negative, or that something did not happen/is not true. It's like if you have a girlfriend and she claims "you base the relationship on sex!" To which the only possible response is, "no I don't" Then, "yes you do!" and "no, I don't" ad infinitum. So in response to the name calling, I plead "no I'm not."
Now, as for the point about how Sadaam Hussein came into power, etc it is probably very likely that you take the position that NO intervention in such affairs would be appropriate in, no time, no place, no situation. These arguments about Sadaam, the Shaw, etc all come from the same basic presupposition--we should never exert our power in the world to try and stabilize regions, stop genocide, because the dictator we put in power may some day turn on us, or because we cannot stop ALL injustice, or any other list of things that might go wrong. (Or the usual hypotheses about oil, the Saudis, the trilateral commission) Unfortunately, there is simply not enough room here to explain how foreign policy works and why we must do these things based on the information we have at the time. But since you probably believe in some weird conspiracy theory about the way the world works, it is pointless to try to change your mind.
Also, there was the thing about any "true conservative" knows that democracy let alone the infliction of it by force is illegal in this country was one i have not heard before, so it is news to me. Of course, we do not have democracy in this country, and we never have. We have a representative, constitutional republic that is set up as a sort of oligarchy. That is the rich and educated run the country. (Or at least have the time and inclination to actually run for office) It has preserved freedom for over 200 years and it works for me. If by democracy with a lower case "D" (which you did use) you mean "some sort of representative government," (this is the common usage nowadays) I guess I did not know that was illegal. By the way, I do not identify myself as a conservative. I am a libertarian leaning Republican.
But, as I said before, the liklihood that this will change your mind is proabably about the same as getting struck by lightning, so thanks for the comments, and I'm glad you found my blog!
Scott.
Post a Comment
<< Home