Hozhead or: Why genocide is preferable to Bush

1-11-2005 Hozhead or: Why genocide is preferable to Bush

I had no intention of playing any internet games today. And then I wandered upon the forum page.

What Happened to the Iraq Coverage? -- Ethel Hozniak, 22:10:19 01/10/05 Mon [1]

It's so quiet around here. Before I continue, the email has changed. It was a New Year's resolution.

Now, I've been away on a Eastern European vacation to Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, the former Eastern Germany and even made it to Sarajevo. You should see what they have done to that city. The bombed out buildings are becoming Internet cafes and the economy is picking up. Sure can't wait for Iraq to stabilize, you know, maybe they could join the 'haves' of the world. Since I've been gone for awhile I finally got a good refresher on the Times of Zorcong. I got to the 25Dec post and thought I'd come across holy wishes to all of his suddenly religious comrades, following the born-again evangelist himself G. Dub.

What I got was some filth about Iraq not cooperating with Dubya's almighty vision of how to build a peaceful nation. Why hasn't Billy Graham signed up for those trips to Iraq? Instead the troops are treated to Kid Rock.

I enjoyed the vindication of Colin Powell.

Courtesy of Zordork:
"There is a distinct reason why Colin Powell is being drummed out of this administration. The overriding reason being his own doctrine of not going to war without knowing when we were going to quit beforehand."

I just don't get you Zordork. Are you saying that you would rather have a SofS that doesn't think of these possibilities before committing 100,000 troops to a region known for wars lasting decades? Wouldn't an exit strategy be something to consider?

Just looking back over my Iraq notes I have come across my talking points memo from the Fox News 'Fair and Balanced,' Sean Hannity, Bill (Take it all off, bitch) O'Reilly, Loyalist Michael Savage, and G. Dub's daddy Rush Limbaugh about how Bush thought he'd win the war and the peace would follow. It's looking more like this is a possibility if those pesky multinationals would just go home and find someone else to fight. Someone tell those hardline Iranian Shiites to go back to baking pita bread. Someone tell those Jordanian militants to hitch up to a 7-Eleven and join the management team. Someone tell those Saddam supporters to find some good desert farmland to irrigate. Someone tell Zordork to write a best-seller on how to get these rejected camel jockeys a job driving a cab. WHY DON'T THESE RAG HEADS COMPLY WITH G. DUB'S WISHES!!

Signed,
YellowBelliedCommie
Ethel

P.S. I can't wait to hear back on Colin Powell trying to convince the Bushies that an exit strategy might be a good thing. I get so bored with all the firefighter columns. It's time to go Emeril style and kick it up a notch. Don't you know that we have an upcoming election to cover. I'm looking for Allawi in a landslide with all 100 votes counted from the Green Zone voting booth.

********

Wow! Ethel's back. I was wondering what the heck happened to you. I thought maybe Dubya activated the Peace Corps to active-duty status and sent your brigade and a Boy Scout troop to Tikrit.

Suddenly religious comrades?

What sort of chemical agents do they blend into their hashish over there in the former Soviet bloc "have nots", babs? Drano? Nah, let's rethink that a tad. Those folks probably yearn for the day when they'll be able to afford a single bottle of Drano.

For the very first time that I can recall, somebody upped and accused me of being religious. Consider that a ridiculous mistake on your part. Go on biting my ankles. Antagonism not supported by facts makes about as much sense as bombing the Balkans from the edge of outer space and hitting the correct target 50% of the time. Or were you not privy to those facts also?

Filth? Herein lies another one of your typical and predictable misconceptions. Your obvious lack of tolerance of differing opinions precludes you from objectivity assessing any situation without first slipping your "I hate Bush" blinders on first. You wear your hate for Bush on your sleeve, and it's overzealousness is matched only by it's hysterical nature. Billy Graham? Kid Rock? What the f**k did your parents do to you? I suspect you've got issues that will need to be dealt with one day.

I enjoyed the vindication of Colin Powell.

Vindication? Drano again. The only reason that Colin Powell is one of your new-found heroes is because you perceive him to be the only American to have thought about an exit strategy before giving the order to go. Or, on a completely partisan note, you see him as being correct, while the evil Bushies were dead wrong. You couldn't be more wrong on that. Do you really think that no one else at the Pentagon or the White House even considered exit strategy scenarios? Come on. Be serious.

Try this one on for size direct from the Naval War College:

One of the worst strategic concepts the Pentagon ever came up with was General Colin Powell’s notion that America should never intervene militarily overseas unless and until an exit strategy is clearly defined. The legacy of that dictum has poisoned the U. S. military’s strategic planning ever since, generating the force we have today—perfect for drive-by regime changes and understaffed for everything else.

Stop-loss policies, anyone? Eight less active-duty ground divisions, anyone?

What is an exit strategy anyway? We roll in there, shoot anyone with a weapon, pass out the Hershey bars and nylon stockings and pull out in time for the Super Bowl? Or we shoot the first 10,000 we see, make the rest pose nekkid, pass out Billy Graham audiobooks and then pull back to the river Clinton? Or should we bomb them repeatedly from 35,000 feet and then drop thousands of flyers telling them not to shoot the friendly U.N. peacekeepers? You know not of which you speak.

Name a single major military conflict that had a clearly defined exit strategy that didn't go poof right after the first shots were fired, and I'll show you where La-la Land is on the map. What was our exit strategy during World War I? Or World War II? Vietnam, perhaps? Try this scenario: We overwhelm them with superior force and pound on them until they surrender. Unfortunately, you and your ilk no longer have the stomach for such an undertaking. And yet, we wonder why the rogue terrorists of the world call us a "paper tiger." It's because of armchair pundits such as yourself that mistakenly confuse your complete mistrust of our government with patriotism.

And you really should re-examine why "wars of attrition" have become so chic since 1970. When our enemies know that they need only to wait for internal political strife to undercut our military objectives, they hunker down and do whatever it takes to cleverly manipulate the politically aware, but militarily ignorant folks such as yourself. The pressure they bring to bare on our troops pales in comparison to the political pressure folks like you bring to bare on our own leaders, political, or otherwise.

While the bleeding heart types profess to care about the plight of every single person living below the poverty line in this country, they routinely remain mute while genocide, poverty and disease is perpetrated upon the people living in the "have not" countries. You can mock the "haves vs. the have nots" argument until the pallets of Drano finally arrive in Yugoland, but what it demonstrates is that your compassion is very subjectively and unevenly applied whereas the lot in life of foreigners are concerned.

You call them "camel jockeys" and "rag heads" as if you are somehow speaking for me, but if you take another shot at my December 24th posting; I was the one making the argument that trying so desperately to bring peace, or freedom, or democracy (whatever you may call it) to folks suffering under intolerable circumstances is a noble endeavor. The only problem is, despite your seeing yourself as the ultimate in enlightened thinkers; every single thing you see or think is clouded by your "I hate Bush" filter that was obviously beaten into your head. I hate Bush no matter what the heck he may do? That's an original thought? Thin, babs. Very funking thin. And yet, you also mistakenly make the barely-veiled charge that folks such as myself wouldn't know what to think if WILK was hit by an asteroid.

Wrong again. Here we go again. Let's review my listening and viewing habits, shall we.

WILK: On most days, I like Nancy KMan, but Kevin Lynn is beyond annoying. No biggie. I love Sue Henry. She's fun and it's obvious that she's a good person without a single mean-spirited bone in her body. Very strange coming from an evil right-winger, heh, Hozhead? I listen to Rush on most days. Sometimes he right on, and other times I think he's way over the top. But he's entertaining on most days. If Sean Hannity retired, I wouldn't miss him for a second. And I rarely, if ever, listen to his show. Michael Savage is a freaking hoot, but I usually miss his daily bomb tosses. If everyone approached the important issues of the day like Savage does, the polarization of the populace would rise to a level previously unseen in the history of mankind. He's funny, but you have to take him with several million grains of salt on most days. Bill O'Reilly? NOT!

I think it's obvious that my beliefs are a mish-mash of all sorts of conflicting sources, but to suggest that I can't think for myself proves that you don't even understand the nature of the beast you have devoted your energies to antagonizing. More serious mistakes on your part.

Someone tell those hardline Iranian Shiites to go back to baking pita bread. Someone tell those Jordanian militants to hitch up to a 7-Eleven and join the management team. Someone tell those Saddam supporters to find some good desert farmland to irrigate. Someone tell Zordork to write a best-seller on how to get these rejected camel jockeys a job driving a cab. WHY DON'T THESE RAG HEADS COMPLY WITH G. DUB'S WISHES!!

More on your enlightened thought process. This is so typical of the ultra-compassionate folks of your ilk. Anyone that dares to disagree with your point of view is automatically labeled a racist. And yet, you're the one who feels so comfortable with throwing racial slurs around on the internet. Give that some thought, will you? Or, at the very least, try to restrain yourself in the future.

Yet another mistake:

I'm looking for Allawi in a landslide with all 100 votes counted from the Green Zone voting booth.

Ha! Ha! That's cute and all, but it'll turn out to be about as inaccurate as our bombing runs over Yugoland were.

Straight up, Hozhead. Answer me this: What do you want to see happen in Iraq? Would you like to see the Iraqi people escape the abject tyranny that was their former country; or would you prefer to see that country collapse into a protracted civil war so as to embarrass the evil Bushie clan? What would be your desired result? Peace and prosperity for the Iraqi people? Or to have Iraq literally explode before your very eyes and give you something to gloat about?

Whether you can admit it or not, your off-kilter mindset is exactly what breathes continued life into the pro-Saddam Baathists killing whatever innocent bystanders they wish on any given day. And when I learn of the latest senseless attacks and the needless bloodshed, I am saddened by them. I'm wondering if you can say the same thing.

What would float your boat for the foreseeable future? 25 million people being in control of their own destiny for the very first time? Or watching them die needlessly and being able to put the political screws to the dreaded Bushies? I think I know what you'd clearly prefer. Please tell me I'm wrong. You seem too bright to be so completely screwed-up by the ill-advised over-politicization of a war.

Hozhead is back and she hates Bush.

And that's supposed to pass as a substitive debate of the issues?

Stick to the firefighter columns, babs.

Me gotta go. The mayor just faxed tomorrow's talking points to me. Now I know what I want to say.

Buh-bye