Thursday, June 28, 2007


I had a little dust-up at work the other day with a co-worker over the Iraq war. A defender of the war, and die-hard Republican, my co-worker directed a lecture, actually a scold, about the need for sacrifice for the freedoms we enjoy. Or something. The lecture was a sophomoric and petulant attempt to shame me into supporting the invasion/occupation/escalation of the PNAC agenda. It was also mixed with a small bit of spittle.

I agree with the need for sacrifice for Dick and Dubya's most excellent adventure, but it should not be so compartmentalized. The pain and blood and death sacrifice being borne almost entirely by our all-volunteer army, their families and friends. And in typical Republican fashion, the payment for this war is punted well out of reach, falling as a sacrifice to our grandchildren. This Administration has a war, an occupation, expanded the federal government by forty percent and cut taxes to its billionaire corporate donor base.

So where is this sacrifice? If indeed, as the rightards vehemently point out that America being invaded by 20 box-knife wielding fanatics is an existential threat to end life as we know it, then perhaps each and every American should share in this sacrifice.

Re-institute the draft. No wussy-assed loopholes like "five deferment Dick Cheney" or anal cyst OxyMorons. Two years of Mess-O-Potamia for all. The Democrats just initiated the PayGo system, which means, like, pay as you go. Apply this to Iraqistan. No new funds issued until the last tab is paid in full. One would definitely have to eliminate the billionaire tax breaks. Perhaps everyone else's taxes would have to double--or triple.

I'm down with that. Perhaps if the sacrifice, in real time, of suffering and funding for the disaster known as Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) visited the hearts and bank balances of each American, the 30 percent domestic support it enjoys would evaporate, and people would take to the streets, banging a pot or a pan, demanding an end to this fruitless disaster.

But mostly it remains Somebody Else's Problem. As Drifty so elegantly pointed out, people are perfectly happy to just sit at home and watch "Poo-Flinger Island" and "Smell My Wife."

As far as the occupation escalation, can someone please explain to me how arming and training people involved in a civil war is supposed to quell the violence. With more guns and better training?


Myrtle June said...


Saw your post on fdl.... about the dustup. I like your letter just as written.

Cute kitty too ;-D

notimportant said...


I am interested in buying your YK registration if still avaliable


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Redstater said...

You asked..."will somebody please explain to me..."

Sure "stomper"... I'll be glad to explain it to ya... but I'm not sure you are capable of understanding.

In order for you to understand the answer you will need to recognize some facts that you (until this point) have refused to admit however.

First... you (anyone) can buy a gun (or weapon of choice) on the streets of Iraq for peanuts... so we are not arming innocent Iraqis with to kill each other with, nor are we selling IED's, car bombs or suicide belts. (the gun of choice AK47, is NOT an American weapon by the way)

Second... Shiite and Sunni local tribal leaders are NOW WORKING WITH the US and Iraqi armies to fight AGAINST Al Qaeda... who is the primary catalyst in trying to incite a civil war.

US troops are not starting a civil war, not in the middle of a civil war, not arming civilians to kill each other, but are instead working WITH locals to fight off "insurgent" groups (like Al Qaeda and Iranian based groups)

So, the premise of your question is flawed from the start, which explains why you have trouble arriving at the answer.

But of course instead of believing the truth, you will prefer to stick to your Democrat talking points from pre-9/11.

Glad to help the unhelpable.

Oilfieldguy said...

you deliver "beliefs" masquerading as "facts". I'll just hit some of the high points. You said:
First... you (anyone) can buy a gun (or weapon of choice) on the streets of Iraq for peanuts... so we are not arming innocent Iraqis with to kill each other with, nor are we selling IED's, car bombs or suicide belts. (the gun of choice AK47, is NOT an American weapon by the way)
According to testimony delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month by The Man Called Petraeus, Iraq has become one of the largest buyers of US made weapons.
In 2004 and 2005, the United States bought 185,000 AK-47s from an Eastern European country -- after Iraqis rejected U.S.-made M-16 assault rifles -- as part of a $2.8 billion program to deliver military equipment to Iraq. But a recent Government Accountability Office report said that 110,000 of them were unaccounted for, with about 30 percent of all arms distributed to Iraqi forces by the United States since 2004 missing.
So red, your first point lives in a fact-free environment.

Your next assertion is that it is all Al Qaeda's fault, still connecting 9/11 with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and denying the historical strife that exists between Shia and Sunni. If only those pesky 9/11 fanatics would leave Iraq, the Shia and Sunni would gather at the river for a resounding chorus of kumbaya.

You are teh funny, red.