Friday, August 30, 2002

I was in the market today, I came across a loaf of what was called "Canadian Bread". If any Canadian readers are reading this, I'd like to know exactly what Canadian bread is supposed to be. As far as I could tell by looking, Canadian bread appeared to be really polite white bread with an inferiority complex.
Lessons in Geography. Iraq today is trying to teach us all a lesson in geography. In a Reuters piece, Iraqi vice-stooge Taha Yassin Ramadan told reporters that "Iraq is not Afghanistan". Of course, almost a year ago, the Taliban told us that "Afghanistan is not Iraq". I'd like to thank both of them for clearing that discrepancy up. It also shows how neither one wants to be thought of in the same light as that other bunch of losers who got clobbered by the USAF.

Thursday, August 29, 2002

Ha'aretz has an excellent article in it about the Arab reaction to an invasion of Iraq. The one thing I noticed in it was the air of defeatism that the Arab world is starting to acquire:
The war on Iraq" is not merely a bland expression that describes the state of affairs. Judging by the extent of Arab rhetoric and political commentaries, the war stands to go down as "the Mother of All Wars," one even more momentous - to the Arab world - than the previous Gulf War. In terms of regional significance, it even has the potential to surpass the resolution of the Palestinian problem. Because the planned attack on Iraq is the Arab war against America. "We are at the threshold of a redrafting of the map of the Middle East," wrote the political columnist Adli Sadeq in Al Quds al-Arabi, a newspaper published in London. The American plot, he writes, groups together Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iran, and ultimately aims to redivide the Middle East into loyal statelets, or even into tribes - tribes and oil wells.
Notice how the tone is not how to prevent a "redrafting of the map" but that such a redrafting is for all intents and purposes a fait accompli. The Arab world understands that we will win. They also know that once we win, all the assumptions that have governed the worldview for the past 50 years have gone out the window. Since Britain and France left the Arab world, and the creation of Israel, the Arabs have never experienced utter defeat along the lines of what happened to Germany and Japan in WWII. Every time Israel approached that point, the UN(read: US and/or USSR) stepped in, and victorius interruptus occurred. Because of that, the Arabs have never had to truly face the brutal reality that they have been "lucky" for the past half century. The Arabs have a belief that they can win, because while they have lost wars in the past, they have never had to sue for peace. After the Gulf war, that belief was shaken somewhat. However, due to the status quo obsession of Bush41, and the general cowardice and fecklessness shown by Clinton's foreign policy, the credibility we had at the end of the Gulf War was eroded to nothing. It only took a short while before the Arab world and most importantly Saddam and Osama came to think that we were incapable of attacking with the intent to overthrow and/or kill the leadership in the Arab world. The Arab world mistook forebearance for weakness. That is why Osama and Saddam attacked us. They believed we were incapable of striking back. That Afghanistan fell so quickly shocked the Arab world somewhat. If we conquer Iraq*, for the first time, the Arab world will understand what is meant by unconditional surrender. That will change things, because we will have demonstrated, decisively and lethally, that the Arab world is incapable of standing up to American military might, and that the only thing preventing us from doing them like we did Saddam is our own forebearance. At that point, our "street cred" will be such that we won't have to use military force again. The Arab world will be forced to engage in self-examination, which they have never had to do in the 20th century. *In one sense we are liberating Iraq. In another sense, we are conquering it. We are invading with the deliberate intent of removing a sovereign government and replacing it with one more palatable to us. While it will be also more palatable to the Iraqis, thereby liberating them, it will be more palatable to us, making it a conquest.

Wednesday, August 28, 2002

The Donahue Show Death Watch OK, I'm starting it right now. The Donahue show is on its way to the dustbin of cable shows. So I am creating the Donahue Show death watch. The person who guesses the correct date for a)the last day the show is on the air, and b) the day the show is officially cancelled will receive, courtesy your humble blogger, an Impeach Norm Mineta bumper sticker. In the event of a tie, the day the network announces the show is being cancelled will be used as a tiebreaker. If you manage to guess the crackpot leftist who will be on the last show, I'll even autograph the bumper sticker. That way, 100 years from now, your great-great-grandkids can say with pride, "My great-great-granddad won a bumpersticker signed by an absolute nobody!" Here are the rules:
1)This is the Donahue Show Death Watch, not the Phil Donahue Death Watch. We are only debating when his career goes belly up, not when he goes belly up. So if the show ends by him croaking, all bets are off. That should take care of the "I killed Donahue to win a bumper sticker," crowd. 2)If MSNBC is taken off of the air, that DOES COUNT. That "Feminine Vapors" with Chris Matthews or Ashleigh Banfield's "Clueless Across America" disappear with it is just gravy. 3)Only entries in the comments section count. If the comments section acts up, just do a reload. YACCs is acting temperamental lately. 4)"He'll never get cancelled" won't be accepted. This is the Donahue Show Death Watch, not the Donahue Show Comatose Watch. 5)The winner will be acknowledged here, and I will ask for for all the details to send him the bumpersticker via e-mail. 6)I'd like to make the prize something better, but I'm a cheapskate. If I win the powerball, I'll pay off a congressman to start impeachment hearings on your behalf.
I have my opinions on what will replace it, but I'll do a contest for that after someone wins the death watch.
Another example of how Hollywood hates the South: CBS is going to run a reality version of the Beverly Hillbillies show. My guess is that the "family" will be gleaned by looking at the guest lists of the Jerry Springer show. Of course, they never make a show like this about Blacks or Hispanics, because that is obviously bigoted, but because the show makes fun of Southerners, that is, of course, good for a laugh. It just shows how much Hollywood looks down their noses at the rest of the country, and especially at the South. It has been a long time since Hollywood has made a movie like Sargeant York that portrays someone from the South as something other than a Klansman, a corrupt power-mad sheriff, or a Deliverance style inbred, violent hick.
OK, I saw how bloghop put in the HTML, and it looked ugly as heck in the body of the blog. So it is now sitting over with the other links and stuff.
OK, I am going to try out this rating system I saw on another blog. I'd like to find out what people think of it. Of course, if you all think I suck, I'll be like CAIR and pretend the whole thing doesn't exist.
Steven Den Beste flips out over the "peace at any price" crowd. After hearing the same pathetically weak arguments from the same people for the past six months, I have to admit I get the urge to tell them to put a fucking sock in it too.

Tuesday, August 27, 2002

First Star Trek, now Cheers. George Wendt (NORM!!) took part in a fundraiser for his brother in law, who is running for Illinois attorney general. The question I have to ask myself is why would someone want the endorsement of an actor who is primarily known for sitting on a barstool eating pretzels and drinking beer all day?
It is Glenn Reynolds birthday today. I just want to send him regards on his nth birthday, and I'd like to thank him for linking to this insignificant little slice of blogosphere.
I accidentally landed on Hardball tonight while channel surfing. He is still a weenie.
Phil Donahue, meet Chevy Chase. Matt Drudge today reports that Donahue's show has hit rock bottom in the ratings. It makes you wonder why they dumped Alan Keyes. For all his pedantry, I am certain he worked a lot cheaper than Donahue, and when MSNBC dumps this turkey, they'll wish they had stayed with the somewhat pedantic Keyes over the tinfoil hat leftism of Donahue. Then again, knowing how the media swings so hard to the left, they won't realize what an unreconstructed lefty Donahue is, and will come up with one of the following replacements: Let's Go Green with Ralph Nader: Ralph Nader shows how evil oil companies have conspired with evil automobile companies to make cars with lousy gas mileage. Nader then goes on to demonstrate how evil power companies created the light bulb to promote nuclear power. The entire show is done by candlelight. Robert Fisk's America Really Sucks Show. Robert Fisk gets together with the Islamofascist du jour and talk about how evil the United States is. At the end of the show, the Islamofascist beats up Fisk, and Fisk thanks him. Al Sharpton is the Real Black Leader: Al Sharpton talks to anyone in earshot about how he is oppressed by The Man, and quietly insinuates how Jesse Jackson is a has been and no longer a real Black leader. Louis Farrakhan Likes Saddam: Louis Farrakhan talks about killing whitey and how much he likes Saddam Hussein. Each show is devoted to a different prime number, which is used to prove what a nice guy Saddam Hussein is. Everybody's a Peacenik with Howell Raines: Howell Raines spends every show demonstrating how everyone wants the United States to kiss Saddam's butt, and that when people like Henry Kissinger say preemption is necessary, what they really mean is that Saddam is a cuddly bear of Pan Arabism and Bush's policy on Kyoto is the reason why the WTC was bombed.
Bear Mauls Animal Rights Activist There are four ways we can look at this. The first would be the mutlicultural animal rights perspective, which would be that the bear was simply expressing its frustration at being an oppressed minority. The second would be the animal rights law and order perspective, which would be to send the grizzly to bear jail after being found guilty by a jury of her bear peers, the nanny state perspective, which would be to put her cubs into the custody of Cub Protective Services, while sending her to bear anger management classes, and of course, the final, correct perspective, that: Anyone who believes in animal rights is a weenie.

Monday, August 26, 2002

Let's here it for Canada and Australia, who are part of the Eco-Nazis "Axis of Evil" along with that perennial evil nation, the United States. And I bet you thought they meant Iraq, or North Korea, or some other garden spot.
Now that Chris Matthews is over malaria, it seems he is now back to his normal condition, which is a permanent and prolonged case of the feminine vapors over Iraq. In his unique, Chicken Little way, Matthews breathlessly screams that noone wants war, that the polls don't support war, and that Saddam will blow everything up, arab street, yada yada yada. Anyway, time to take out the fiskomatic, remove the trigger lock, and load in a fresh clip:
The American people are not committed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Cheney's staff is. Rumsfeld's deputies are. The White House speech-writing office is. The guys they're working under are.
No, the American people are committed. That is why Fox got a 69% in favor of military action, the Washington Post/ABC got the same number, with majorities in both cases in favor of war involving ground troops, and in the case of Fox, 52% in favor even if it involves thousands of casualties.
But what about the families of those who will do the fighting? What about the country that will have to suffer the casualties that are the wreckage of every war?
You mean like the wreckage in Lower Manhattan? The wreckage strown across a field in Pennsylvania? The wreckage at the Pentagon? That kind of wreckage? I don't think it takes much of a genius to understand that the soldiers who are going would rather put their own lives at risk rather than see that sort of wreckage, don't you think Chris?
A Washington Post/ABC poll found 57 percent of us back a ground attack on Baghdad but that's if there are no significant casualties. Faced with that prospect, 51 percent oppose it. Is this a strong base from which to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country on the other side of the world? To send several hundred thousand U.S. service people on a mission to take over a country, remove its political leadership from power and install one of our choosing?
Clinton had less support to send troops to Haiti, and it didn't stop him then, did it Chris? And, let's not forget that we didn't have a single national interest in Haiti.
It's time to recall the Powell doctrine of the 1980s and recall the names that gave it resonance: Vietnam and Beirut. With memories of those misconceived missions fresh and painful, then- Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and his chief military assistant, Gen. Colin Powell, drafted new criteria for overseas military involvement. War should be a last resort, undertaken only with precise political and military goals and clear support from the American public and the Congress. There must be a clear exit strategy, and a will to deploy overwhelming force.
OK, Chris. What is our exit strategy for Afghanistan? How about the Balkans? It appears the Weinberger doctrine(Colin Powell got the credit--the architect was Weinberger doesn't seem to invoked too often these days, does it? And it seems Caspar himself doesn't seem to have much problem with that. Unlike Brent "Fight the Last War, and Make the Same Mistakes" Scowcroft, Weinberger doesn't seem to be that locked into old policy.
So we drop tens of thousands of airborne troops into Baghdad. We look for Saddam Hussein. We wear gas masks to protect us from whatever chemical and biological weapons the Iraqi leader has stockpiled for just this occasion. A threatened Israel mobilizes for war. All this against the backdrop of an Arab and Islamic world in riot. In Cairo, President Hosni Mubarak must tighten his grip, igniting even more opposition. Jordan's King Abdullah joins his country's Palestinian majority in condemning the attack. The Saudi Arabian royals are silent. The Muslims and anti-war elements of Europe take to the boulevards
Reading these two paragraphs, it is patently obvious that in addition to malaria, Chris has had a case of amnesia dating back to 1990. Maybe he didn't notice, but the only time the "Arab Street" makes a peep is when they think they are winning. All those posters of Osama and Bert were all over the place when they thought they had found their new Saladin. Once the Taliban had been blasted to Talibits, and people started spotting Osama and Elvis together, those posters were in about as much demand as tofu at a Texas barbecue. The great "Arab Street" is a myth, Chris. It was a myth during the Gulf War, it was a myth in Afganistan, and it will be a myth again in Iraq.
Then comes the messy part. Our troops in Baghdad morph into a nervous constabulary force. Their mission: guard streets, shoot snipers, arrest the suspicious, keep order, find the Hussein loyalists, round up the members of his ruling party, root out plots, battle the terrorists.
We won't have to find the Hussein loyalists. Iraqis will do that for us. There are millions of Iraqis who would like nothing more than payback for the 20+ years of suffering they have been forced to endure. The executions, the murders, etc. When American troops enter Baghdad, proudly being a Ba'athist will be akin to being a Klansman in Harlem. And without a government to protect them, the terrorist will have a new task in their job description: survival.
For how long? How long were we in Beirut before that "peacekeeping" mission ended with a barracks being blown sky-high by a suicide bomber? How long were we in Saigon?
Ah, the strawman of wars past. Like Beirut, where we didn't engage in force protection, or in Vietnam, where your golden boys, JFK and LBJ sent American troops to a quagmire, and patently refused to take action that might have won the war. How come you don't mention the Gulf War, Chris? Because we won? Because had we finished the job in the Gulf War, we wouldn't be forced to fight this one?
This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Somalia in the history of military catastrophe.
Yes, this invasion will be a disaster. Just like last time, the vaunted Republican Guard will bludgeon our poor boys on the fields of Manassas. Their rifles will mow down our troops by the dozen. Oops, sorry, wrong war. Let me start again. Yes, this invasion will be a disaster. Our tired, wear troops will be put in a sector to rest and recover, when the vaunted Republican Guard will come crashing through the Ardennes, the infamous tanks built by the industrial might of Iraq will blast apart our poor GIs in their Shermans. Dang, wrong war again. How about this? The Iraqi Army folds like a cheap suit as thousands of Iraqis decide they would rather surrender than fight for Saddam. The Republican guard tanks, for all Saddam's bluster, becomes little more than targets in a live fire exercise for our troops. Highways all over the combat zone are littered with wrecked Iraqi vehicles, and, unlike 1991, the status Quo crowd does not stop the Army from continuing on to Iraq, virtually unopposed. By the time the first soldiers show up in Iraq, Saddam has already been hanging from a lamppost for the better part of a day.
A mission to attack one isolated enemy will end up isolating us. A mission justified by the fight with terrorism will give birth to millions of terrorist- supporting haters. In every cafe from Manila to Casablanca, just whom do you think they will be rooting for? Just whom will their kids be killing themselves for?
First of all, there is very little we can do to stop them from hating us, except by not being Americans anymore. Secondly, why do you think Arabs would want to live under Saddam any more than you would?