 |
 |
As I write this rant, the war is winding down and the occupation of Iraq will begin in earnest. Now I didn't think this invasion (might as well call a spade a spade as the saying goes) and frankly, the jubilant people not withstanding, I still don't. There was never any doubt that the US would win eventually. (Announcing that this would be a "cakewalk" was in all honesty, unnecessary and most ungentlemanly boasting and, to be blunt, insulting. I mean really, how many people would willfully allow strangers to invade their homes? There are people in this country who would put a bullet into someone for trying to cross their lawn. I know if someone thought they were going to bust into my house that I wouldn't think twice about doing whatever it took to keep the invader out. And it certainly wouldn't mean that I was fighting for Bush. The arrogance in believing that people would welcome intruders with flowers is staggering. What did the Idiots-in-Charge that only Americans are patriotic? Sheesh! But I digress…) Far be it for me to rain on anyone's victory parade with things like logic but there are some questions that need to be answered.
1. What happened to the weapons of mass distractions -er I mean "weapons of mass destruction?" The Bushites have said numerous times that this invasion they call war is about disarming Iraq. So where are the weapons? Why is it that so-called "coalition forces" haven't found any? Surely a government facing imminent attack would have dug the buggers out of their hiding places and readied them for use. Yet not only have these weapons not been deployed but they also haven't been found. So I ask again: Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
2. What happens if weapons are found? How can we tell if they truly were Iraqi weaponry or if the US planted them? Let's face it, based on the disgraceful attempt to get UN sanction for war based on incomplete, plagiarized, and out and out fabricated evidence it is not unreasonable for some to believe that the administration is capable and willing to plant evidence. So who's going to do the weapons search once the battle is done? (Since the current excuse for not finding the "weapons of mass destruction" is that "coalition forces" have not put effort into looking for them.)
3. The Bushites keep harping on this whole the invasion is not about oil thing. If that's so maybe someone can answer this for me: Why is it that when anarchy reigns supreme and there's looting everywhere the ministry of oil and the oil fields remain unscathed? The troops are supposed to be so busy trying to tamp down remaining resistance that the violence and looting have become secondary considerations. Yet they managed to find time to protect the ministry of oil and the oil fields. Are the Bushites for real? Do they really expect us to believe that the primary objective is to free the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein and or disarm Iraq of its "weapons of mass destruction (Depending on who one asks and when) because in the long run they have the Iraqi people's interest as heart yet when the shit hits the fan it's the secondary objective (protecting the oil) which is of paramount importance? Excuse the incredulity but the logic escapes me. It makes no sense. In fact, it sounds like complete bullshit. (Pardon my French. Yes I did say French.) Or did someone change the definitions of primary and secondary and no one informed me.
4. Yet another excuse for the invasion of Iraq by the Bushites given was the war on terrorism. A couple of days ago the Bushites trotted out the man responsible for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, Abu Abbas. The US forces captured this man then tried to convince the world that his capture proves that the invasion of Iraq was to squash down terrorism. Far be it for me to question the Idiots in Charge, oh forget it who am I fooling. Maybe I'm a bit of a cynic, but this sounds like more bullshit from the PR wing of the White House. No one is surprised by a Palestinian terrorist being found in Iraq, it's often been said that Iraq gives money to the families of those who blow themselves up in Israel. Besides, using this man is completely disingenuous. This man committed his act 18 years ago. Granted he can be extradited and tried but that's not why the Bushites claimed to be in Iraq. This is supposed to be about the "war on terrorism." What does a man whose offense was committed nearly two decades ago have to do with a terrorist attack that occurred two years ago? Nothing! This foolishness is a smokescreen to try to deflect critics who believe that this war is about oil. It doesn't fool me.
5. Speaking of terrorist acts from this decade: What happened to Osama Bin Laden? I was under the impression that we were supposed to "smoke him out of his hole" to use on of the President Select's phrases. So where is he? Why did we invade Iraq without finding him? Now we can't find Saddam Hussein. That's just great, now there's two assholes who have it in for us that we can't find. Lovely.
6. Back to the looters: As the aggressors in this illegal invasion the US will bear the brunt of the rebuilding costs. Why are the military personnel standing by doing nothing while buildings are being stripped clean? We're going to have to pay to replace that stuff! The economy can't take the strain now. Why is this situation being exacerbated by the negligence of the military to stop the looting? Besides, if we're supposed to be looking for evidence of a weapons program wouldn't the government office computers be a reasonable place to look. Guess we shan't have that problem anymore what with the looters having taken them. Or maybe this was the intent that way when the weapons aren't found the Bushites can say it's because they couldn't find any leads.
7. Speaking of the economy, why is it that local taxes are going up, services are being cut, and people are being laid off left and right yet the Bushites insist on inflicting damn near a trillion dollars in tax cuts on the budget. We're at war right? Doesn't war entail sacrifices? Wouldn't that mean sacrifices from everyone? So why is it that the tax cut Bush wants to ram through for the rich hasn't been taken off the table? It's bad enough that they got a big tax cut in 2001 that's been cutting off revenue from the treasury. Now Bush wants to add more tax cuts to the already generous tax cut package he gave to his cronies. It's utterly irresponsible! The federal government is defunding regulatory agencies and cutting veterans' benefits and the moron, that squatter in the White House, insists on continuing to under fund the treasury by cutting taxes for those who don't need the extra money. And do you know who ends up paying when localities jack up fees? We do because the taxes that get raised are the regressive ones! (Sales taxes, ect.) I'm sure that the raising of local fees and taxes isn't going to mean a whole lot to the well off. They can afford it. However, it can damn sure wreck havoc in the budgets of the rest of us. But maybe that is the sacrifice that the Bushites think should be made. Sacrifice for the suckers and suckered in the working and middle class and none for the rest of them.
8. Maybe I'm just a dumb ass. (Nah!) Call me pedantic but I'd like to know exactly which nations are making up the "coalition" forces. As far as I can tell the so-called coalition making up those who are actually fighting consists of the US, the British and a few Australians. This, in my admittedly not so humble opinion, does not a coalition make.
9. What is the deal with people talking about if you don't support the war you don't support the troops? Is the case for war so weak that it can't take a little scrutiny? If that's the case maybe it says more about the case then the critics.
9. One last thing: What is the deal with people getting all pissy with the French? The principles for which this country is supposed to stand was based on French philosophers. The French helped the colonies break free from England. The Statue of Liberty is a gift from the French and let's not forget the tasty croissant. All this crying and bitching about the French is completely unnecessary. And exactly why are the right wing morons talking about boycotting the French? Because the French leaders actually had the temerity to listen to the people, respect their wishes and oppose the war. <sarcasm> The nerve! </sarcasm> Maybe if the Bushites understood the concept of democracy they'd understand the concept. But since Bush wasn't actually elected and the wishes of the people come second to the wishes of the corporate hacks who contribute to his campaign I wouldn't expect him to understand the concept. I for one think we should be thanking the French for standing up to Bush and company. God only knows the Democrats haven't bothered to do so.
These are but a few of the questions that are currently rattling around in my brain of late. If I got something reasonably sensible sounding as an answer I might feel somewhat better, but I don't see that happening. Barring impeachment or a pretzel I'll just have to wait until 2004 when hopefully we can get this slacker, drunken, asshole, pinhead, prick out of the White House.
That's my two cents.
|
|