« cement shoes | Main | ain't that a kick in the ass? »

life's not fair, deal with it

life's not fair, deal with it

Oh, I can see the headlines now:


In a stunning move, Congress went back into session today and reversed themselves, saying, "Oh, gosh! We forgot to take into consideration the feelings of the the protesters! There's some guy in San Fransisco who says we didn't respect his opinion, so let's show him how he can make a difference with his sit-ins and his blocking of federal buildings and we'll reverse our votes in the name of the left!"

As if.

I love when I turn on the tv and see some protester spitting into a microphone about the poor women and children of Iraq. First of all, what about the poor women and children of the good old U.S. of A, where you live, jackass? Doesn't the fact that the man in charge over in Iraq is building weapons that could blow us all to pieces worry you just a teeny, tiny bit? Second of all, all those poor women and children in Iraq would give their right arms to have their lunatic leader taken out. This guy gasses his own people, tortures them, kills them, doesn't give a crap about them. Those ladies and their kids will be the first ones cheering when Saddam's head is speared on the end of a stick.

But these people with their signs and their civil disobedience and their utopian ideals don't care about the American women and children. They're the kind of people who put a pig or a frog or a tree ahead of their fellow human beings. Unless that fellow human being is in a country that is our enemy, then all of a sudden they want to protect human life.

I wish some of the tofu and bean sprout crowd would try to block me from getting into my federal place of employment one morning. I have a few weapons of mass destruction of my own I'd like to try out on them.

I think I'm having nicotine withdrawal.

link from the chocolate-covered gretchen


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference life's not fair, deal with it:

» i'm no pundit but... from negroplease.com :: better left unsaid
the reasons, the reasons are why we're here... [Read More]


I don't agree with attacking Iraq, and I do care about the women, children and even men of the United States.

I've seen no evidence that we have any more reason to fear Iraq than 20 other countries in the world, so no, I'm not overly worried about Iraq right now.

I am worried about the effects of attacking a small country because we assume that some day they may develop WMD and some day they might want to commit certain suicide by using them against the US. I am worried about the hundreds of billions of dollars that this war will cost which will mean the people of the US will not be able to improve education, healthcare, or retirement for the women, children and men of America.

I am concerned that people who avoided military service are pushing this war, while those in the military say it is a bad idea.

I am concerned that the people pushing this war stand to profit in the billions by controlling oil reserves and selling replacement weapon system to the US and other countries (including our enemies).

I am concerned with the idea of deciding for other countries what type of government they will have. Any country has the option to revolt, as the colonist did in America against the British, and put a new government in power. They can choose for themselves whether it is worth sacraficing there lives for.

And I am concerned that this course of action will lead to new terrorist attacks, as those victimized by this American effort will find some way to pay us back for the destruction and bloodshed we cause under the cover of self-defense.

We will go to war with Iraq. We will topple Saddam Hussein and we will control the Middle East, but we will not bring them our ourselves any peace or security.

We will pay for this action in many ways and for a long time, and that is what I truly fear.

I still love you though, Michele. You rock.

I'm more afraid that bombing Iraq is going to enrage bereaved Iraqis into joining the anti-American terrorist movement than I am of Saddam attacking the U.S. As I've said before, he seems to like being a dictator, and the moment he makes any move against the U.S., or any country for that matter, he won't be a dictator anymore because the U.S. will annihilate him and his country. If he likes being a dictator, he won't attack the U.S.

The limited info I've seen about what the Iraqi people really want is that they'd like an end to the US/UN sanctions, and they don't want a war made on them.


Excuse typos and poor spelling. I typed too fast and hit post with proof-reading. Sorry.

Well put, wKen. The sanctions against Iraq have made it impossible for Iraqis to take any action against their leader. To say they are complicit in any of George W.'s or Saddam's machinations is unfair - they are too busy trying to stay alive.

ten years ago, everyone was afraid thousands would die, and there would be retaliations left and right. neither turned out to be the case, 09.11 notwithstanding.

i think the US is being underestimated, and iraq over estimated. his elite republican guard turned out to be pussies last time, and i can't imagine he's filled the ranks with stronger-willed soldiers.

there may be no evidence (though it's unlikely the DoD would tell the public everything), but then the west had been lulled into a sense of security prior to the WTC attacks. the evidence then seemed tenuous, and it wasn't until the buildings came down that the direct threat from terrists was taken seriously - too late for the 3000 people in those buildings and planes.

people who have avoided military service are no less appropriate for making these decisions than the non-laywres creating our laws and the people revising medicare who have no experience in medicine.

that is what advisors are for. if practical experience is what one needs to make military decisions, than as time passes there will be fewer and fewer people to make those decisions.

one of the depressing facts of war is that innocent poeple die. but if there's a choice - and there is - i'd rather it's their innocent people and not ours.

i'm glad i was given a vaccination when i was a baby, because it would have proved useless had i received it once i'd contracted an illness. it hurt, and i was sick for a little while, but i was never at risk of contracting polio.

good analogy, huh?

I'm just worried that attacking Iraq is only going to serve to kill a bunch of the women & children we are alledgedly liberating, but won't actually do anything about the regime currently in place. IOW, I still don't see how a military attack is going to actually obtain our objectives of disarming Iraq and restoring human rights to its citizens.

Mike, giving you a vaccination as a child is not the same thing as killing innocent women and children (why are men never innocent?), and there is not currently a choice between our "innocent" people dying or theirs. Their's are going to die. Period. I'm sure that you might understand their anger at you making that choice for them.

9/11 was a direct result of the first Gulf War. Osama was not an enemy of the United States until we refused to pull our military bases out after that conflict. Many Arabs feel it is an insult for the US to occupy their land. Imagine how we might feel if another country came in and set up military bases on US soil. They don't because we are strong enough not to let them, but Saudi Arabia has no real choice, so they accept it in order to stay in power.

Osama bin Laden has always said that the purpose of his attacks was to get the US military out of Saudi Arabia, just like the war in Afghanistan with the Soviet Union was to make them leave. The attacks stopped when the Soviet Union couldn't afford to continue the war and left. We helped Osama in that battle, because we wanted the SU out of there too.

If the US had pulled out after the 1st Gulf War, there would have been no terrorist attacks on us. Yes, they hate us, but it doesn't matter to them as long as we stay out of their country. 3000 Americans died because Bush 1 wanted an army in place in that area.

If the real need was to have continued control of Saddam, he should have been taken out then. In truth, we could still control Saddam by use of our Navy and air bases in other countries. A base in Saudi Arabia just helps to keep the other countries afraid of us.

So ask the families of those thousands of American dead if that base was worth it. Ask the families of the dead in Afghanistan if they are happier now than before America bombed the hell out of the place. Ask the Iraq people if they would rather be bombed in order to get Saddam out of power, or whether they would prefer the current sanctions lifted and Saddam controlled, as he has been for the past 10 years, until they can make a "regime change" of their own.

And my problem with the people making the current decisions isn't that they didn't serve in the military. It is that they avoided it due to wealth and privilage, and this generation's youth who come from similar families will do the same. Poor boys will die (probably not in huge numbers, but who is to say what amount is too much), and privilaged boys will be in college doing coke like George Jr. It is always easy to start a war when you suffer none of the sacrifice and derive all of the benefit.

This isn't a war for self-protection. It is a conquest for self-benefit. We did it with the indians (or native Americans), so why not do it today, I guess. IMHO

What worries me is that, if Hussein is a cold-blooded dictator obsessed with power, and therefore would do anything to hold onto it, and, indeed, if he does possess weapons of the destructive capability many fear, then exactly how would a DIRECT attack dissuade him from using them?

As the wise Chinese Philosopher didn't say, 'He who wishes to avoid a bear's claws should take care to poke it repeatedly with a stick'

The thing that absolutely slays me the most about the Naysayers is how they seem to know EXACTLY what's going on in the hearts and minds of the poor foreigners we oppress and randomly bomb, yet absolutely every single word they are told on the homefront is a complete and utter lie.

Please impart to me your wisdom...how can you tell the difference, sensei?

wKen, before I hijack someone else's bandwidth to lambaste your argument, I just want to be clear of one thing---DO YOU REALLY BELEIVE ANY OF THIS?
If your answer is yes, please email me seperately at the following-- dan@bluecoyotestudio.com . I am a Gulf War vet, I spent nearly a decade in the intelligence field, and I think I may be able to illuminate some of the corners of your mind where your fear is living. If you are instead just tryiing to be devil's advocate to get folks to speak out, let me know that as well-- I will be glad to take this over to your blog instead.

Yeah, just deal with it..

Or, you know, you could VOTE..

You're kidding with this diatribe, right?

Let's get a few facts straight: Hussein has the technology to lob a missile 400 miles. That's it. Even if he got "the bomb" tomorrow, there wouldn't be a thing he could do with it except become the most powerful Arab leader in the Middle East, which is his real goal. Attacking the United States? Yeah, sure, that's really high on his list. Saddam Hussein is interested in one thing, and one thing only: remaining leader of Iraq, with Iraq on top of the pile.

Also, Hussein pulled his little "gassing his own people" trick while we were still his allies. We didn't make a stink then, or at any point since then, until someone in Washington realized bringing it up would be a great propaganda tool. It certainly has worked, because I can't turn around without some ill-informed mouth-breather going on and on about the dead babies gassed by Satan, er, Saddam Hussein.

"When did this happen?" I might ask.

"Uh, I don't know."

"Who were these people who were gassed? Were they Kurds, perhaps? They're a different ethnicity entirely from Hussein, aren't they?"

"What are Kurds?"

"And isn't it true that Iran had also bombarded the same area, so it may very well be that those people were killed in the crossfire?"

"Um, what are Kurds?"

Look: Hussein has been in power in Iraq since 1979. He's been a bastard all that time, including when he was our "thick as thieves" ally. We loved this guy so much -- while he was still butchering women and children, natch -- that when one of his fighters fired a missile into one of our ships, we court-martialed the captain of the ship and let the Iraqis off with nary a hand-slap.

This is not so easy a scenario as our Glorious Leader would have us believe. We backed this guy, we strengthened this guy, and we have held our noses while he's done all manner of terrible things. If someone wants to point out how we'll add to the suffering of people already in hell because of our support of the Hussein regime, it's because we don't want to compound the error, not because we don't care about America, or Americans.

Frankly, accusing people who have the ability to see farther than the end their noses as being somehow un-American... well, it's sickening.

When did I ever call anyone "un-American" pray tell?

This is interesting being that I'm usally the one labeled un-American. Dig through my archives some time.

I had no idea that all it would take is my opinion on one single issue to get people to start firing salvos at me.