so i'll try and have this make some sense so i can drop the subject until the next idiot news drops.

bush says that after iraq is to his liking [well done i assume], he will tackle the carbuncle that is the israeli-palestinian situation. i have a lot of varied ideas here, let me go through them -begin drum roll- via my favorite method,-end drum roll- the list.

1. this assumes he can actually handle and/or finish the "iraq situation". and given the state of afghanistan [not an intended pun, you see i mean to say the current state of the nation of afghanistan.] i am not sure why he believes this will be easily accomplished. sure, we can bomb them into dust, but that doesn't mean there will be any more stability in the region. which leads me to..

1.1 or 1.a if you wish. if iraq becomes another pool of infidels or pirates or curmudgeons, i have serious doubts that any potential peace in the area for isr/pal will be out the window because of such battles and tensions.

1.2/b. why was afghanistan never finished? because it was distraction to begin with. dealing with afghanistan when we did makes it look like we are getting back at those who crashed planes into buildings here. no one seems to care very much that nothing got accomplished, so why not do the same in iraq? this time there is already a new distraction in place when iraq is left in disarray. but..

1.3/c. israel and palestine are not places we can just eff-around with, i hope. maybe we can, and maybe no one will step in. i would like to think someone would, but probably not. either we will set up some huge ball of yarn scheme that neither side will be happy with. so much so that it will break down within months or years or not get put into place at all. that, or we will attempt negotiations, only to throw up our hands and say "oh well". we will take our pats on the back for our effort, and scuttle away to destroy someone else.

2. we cry and cry that united nations resolutions are not being followed in iraq, and that since we clearly stated, in a u.n. resolution, that there would be serious consequences to non-compliance with said u.n. resolution. except we are idiots.

2.a. if our bases for attacking rest upon u.n. resolutions [even though the resolutions do not explicitly state that we can attack, i will pretend they do for the sake of argument because that is what governments on this side of the fence are pretending], then the fact that the u.n. says we cannot attack should mean something. let me write this out to make sure i have it straight.

2.a.1. if we accept u.n. resolutions so we can attack, their next resolution saying we cannot attack must then be followed. hence, no attack. if we put forth a resolution in a few months that asked for war again and everyone agreed, i wouldn't like it, but i would at least agree that proper channels had agreed.

2.a.2. also, if we disregard this last vote that says no to war, then we must disregard all votes, including the one that we are using to go to war. and this is much more damaging i think, than the first. because it undermines the u.n. and makes it obsolete.

2.b. i realize that the u.n. has no power inside any given nation because it is just an intercessory body. but we rely on it for international disputes. if we make it obsolete, then there is no "legal" or even "quasi-legal" right to enter another country, as each is sovereign in it's own right. and if hussein says he can have huge weapons, then he can. as the u.n. is the only way to work between nations, i don't see abandoning it a very smart move. but since when have we been known for smart moves.

2.c. also, the u.n. has often called for israel to leave areas it annexed, and israel ignored such resolutions over and over, and we didn't bomb them. or even tell them to move. we just shrugged it off and let it go. why are these resolutions any more important?

2.d. and if one does not need u.n. support to attack other countries, why were the attacks of sept. 2001 so outrageous? u.n. didn't support them either.

3. it all makes me skeptical of why we are all of a sudden so interested in the isr/pal situation. either we want peace there, or we are using it for some other reason.

3.a. say we are using it for some other reason.

3.a.1. obviously it could just be a distraction so that we don't have to deal with iraq after we bomb them.

3.a.2. get the jewish/muslim/mid. eastern support up for next presidential election here. probably more one than the other, but who can say.

3.a.3. perhaps we just want to control certain lands so we have better access to newly "liberated" iraqi oil.

3.a.4. insert your reason here.

3.b. we really want peace in the region. so why now?

3.b.1. all of a sudden, on the verge of war with nearby areas we see the need for peace. seems a bit coincidental.

3.b.2. we always planned to continue peace talks, but didn't want to start them until we were finished destabilizing the region. i.e. going after iraq would have been seen as even more stupid than it is if we had made any headway with isr/pal.

3.b.3. we pretended not to care so that something big would happen, so we could step in and have reasons to mess around in the region.

3.b.4. mainly i'm concerned with, if we do care, and have cared about peace for both sides, why did we let israel off the leash and back them no matter what they did for all this time?

4. all of this is to distract people from the fact that the domestic problems of the country are being ripped up into somehow bigger problems. deficit spending, huge defense bills, and elimination of taxes and programs lead to crappy nations. see: reagan/bush 1. clinton, who is no saint, raised taxes, got the economy booming, and the budget having surplus.

4.a. conservatives say that it was the republican congress that did that. and clinton did nothing. Well, now there is a republican-controlled congress and white house and the country is crap, so what was the difference? easy to see.

4.b. rights have never been stepped on, crushed, or eliminated so swiftly and so silently and so happily agreed to as they are currently. yay, i'm a patriot so eliminate the ability to say anything but what i said at the beginning of this sentence. not only that, jail people without habeas corpus, which has been around for centuries. make it harder to save pregnant women's lives. and basically follow the whims of old mentally retarded white guys. also, yay, i'm a patriot. [not really.]


i think that is the end of the list, but who can really be sure.


"overthrow the government" -a.h.


< << < : : >> > >
number 9.. .   .? andy andy andy, get your adverbs here

rage against the..