Holy Shit....Part Two
I'm still bored beyond the point of retaining the slightest portion of my will to continue on this rectilinear path towards an early demise that I so meekly follow, so the 0.003 persons who find the hallucinatory and erosive properties of absorbing these mindless excursions into the needless recesses of a cynical mind get to further engorge yourself with visual displays of my complete ineptness at being a normal person. Enjoy (or not, if I actually cared about you I would spare you the torture of being forced, not even to read this discourse, but to acknowledge the fact of my existence in any way, shape or form).
I always bitch about the nation's sociopolitical problems, but I seldom list reasons as to why such aspects of our culture disturb me so. As such, I've decided to present (read as: assassinate you through complete erasure of mind with) the reasons why I hate and detest the proposed and soon to happen (regardless of however fucking optimistic (read as : blind to the truth) this or that journalist/politician/asshole is) war against Iraq.
"War" is not a proper term. "Illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and that nation's total decimation" is a much better turm, but I think I will use "Fred" isntead.
So, reasons why I hate and detest the proposed and soon to happen (regardless of however fucking optimistic (read as : blind to the truth) this or that journalist/politician/asshole is) Fred against Iraq.
First off, prior to the United Nations sanction of it (which was total bullshit; one of Bush's goals is to make the U.S. the only significant world power, partially through the degeneration of the United Nations, and so far he's doing a damn fien job of it), such a war would ahve been totally illegal under any national law.
You see, children, under the aforementioned international "law" (which should be renamed "international suggestions which are presented for the sole purpose of illustrating the double standard between nuclear-equipped nations and everyone else"), a country can invade another country only under the following circumstances - a. The country they are attacking has already atatcked them, thus making the strike retaliatory; or b. The nation they are attacking has made a clear threat, including preparations for Fred, to wage Fred against them (I apologize if the -mis-use of pronouns amde that indecipherable; fuck off, slutshit).
You will note that Iraq has neither assaulted us nor made any plans or preparatiosn prerequisite to such an assault. So it's illegal for us to invade them.
However, it's NOT illegal for them to atatck us, as we have made several clear threats against him, as well as the necessary preparations.
Another point I wish to contest is that Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat to the United States. This is done easily with a single word -
BULLSHIT.
I'm hardly a fan of Hussein; he's a power-hungry despot who would step on and end the lives of each citizen in his country if he thought it would gain him an inch of influence or standing.
Which is exactly why he will NOT attack the United States.
Although he is possibly psychotic and certainly dictatorial and oppressive, he is, fortunately, also more intelligent than the average retarded beaver. He is aware that if he Freds the United States, he will be eradicated from any conceivable form of existence.
In the Persian Gulf Fred, George Bush the Older And Slightly More Intelligent declared that if Hussein authorized the use of biochemical weaponry, he would eb dealt with harshly.
With fucking nuclear weapons, as the entire damn world understood. As such, no biochemical agents were sued 9by Iraq, at least), and we wiped the floor with him.
He'll leave us alone because doing so certifies that he will remain at least as powerful as he currently is.
I previously mentioned the fact that Iraq has "citizens", an odd concept that our right-wing government seems to be unaware of. The capital city of Baghdad alone has over three million residents, and I'm fairly certain no more than seventy or eighty are Saddam Hussein; but we'll only kill one, at most eleven, Saddam Husseins in our Fred, whereas we will end the lives of coutnless non-Hussein individuals.
Hrm.
Also, the President has no right to declare war; that responsibility (often perceives as a privelige) rests solely in Congress, though they seem hell-bent on giving Bush unilateral authority to do whatever the fuck he wants.
Bush uses as justification the pre- Desert Storm act which allowed Old Prez Busho to attack Iraq at his leisure. This act was not emant as an open-ended invitation to attack Iraq at any time or for any reason, but for that specific moment, for that specific motivation.
I also protest the concept of instilling a "democratic" society in the nation.
First, we do not, ourselves, have a democratic society, and therefore cannot go about forcing it upon others.
Secondly, forced democracy is contradictory; it is a paradox, or an oxymoron, or soem such nonsense.
Thirdly, believe it or not, not all cultures are prepared for mirror copies of our government. Our representative republic requires a sense of equality between races, sexes, religions and social classes.
Hrm, equality between those groups within an Islamic nation. That's as likely as a team of quadripolegic monkeys winning the Super Bowl in 1773.
In addition, I believe the story that Iraq aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists is a compelte and utter fabrication. I understand, though do not necessarily approve, the need our citizens feel for vengeance in those acts. If so, we should be bombing Saudi Arabia; I believe fifteen of the bombers were from that nation.
Why don't we Fred them, then?
Because Saudi Arabia is one of the few oil-producing nations which does not have open hostility towards the United States.
It's a political war, nothing more, nothing less (actually, it's also an exceptional example of the complete amorality of American culture, but I don't want to elaborate on that subject at this juncture). It's about oil; Hussein rules 10% of the world's known oil supplies. He doesn't like us. Saudi Arabia does, and so, therefore, we do not assault them, regardless of their crimes and impieties.
I hope your intestines have already taken your life in an attempt to end the suffering such a verbose essay must produce, you sociophobes.
I always bitch about the nation's sociopolitical problems, but I seldom list reasons as to why such aspects of our culture disturb me so. As such, I've decided to present (read as: assassinate you through complete erasure of mind with) the reasons why I hate and detest the proposed and soon to happen (regardless of however fucking optimistic (read as : blind to the truth) this or that journalist/politician/asshole is) war against Iraq.
"War" is not a proper term. "Illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and that nation's total decimation" is a much better turm, but I think I will use "Fred" isntead.
So, reasons why I hate and detest the proposed and soon to happen (regardless of however fucking optimistic (read as : blind to the truth) this or that journalist/politician/asshole is) Fred against Iraq.
First off, prior to the United Nations sanction of it (which was total bullshit; one of Bush's goals is to make the U.S. the only significant world power, partially through the degeneration of the United Nations, and so far he's doing a damn fien job of it), such a war would ahve been totally illegal under any national law.
You see, children, under the aforementioned international "law" (which should be renamed "international suggestions which are presented for the sole purpose of illustrating the double standard between nuclear-equipped nations and everyone else"), a country can invade another country only under the following circumstances - a. The country they are attacking has already atatcked them, thus making the strike retaliatory; or b. The nation they are attacking has made a clear threat, including preparations for Fred, to wage Fred against them (I apologize if the -mis-use of pronouns amde that indecipherable; fuck off, slutshit).
You will note that Iraq has neither assaulted us nor made any plans or preparatiosn prerequisite to such an assault. So it's illegal for us to invade them.
However, it's NOT illegal for them to atatck us, as we have made several clear threats against him, as well as the necessary preparations.
Another point I wish to contest is that Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat to the United States. This is done easily with a single word -
BULLSHIT.
I'm hardly a fan of Hussein; he's a power-hungry despot who would step on and end the lives of each citizen in his country if he thought it would gain him an inch of influence or standing.
Which is exactly why he will NOT attack the United States.
Although he is possibly psychotic and certainly dictatorial and oppressive, he is, fortunately, also more intelligent than the average retarded beaver. He is aware that if he Freds the United States, he will be eradicated from any conceivable form of existence.
In the Persian Gulf Fred, George Bush the Older And Slightly More Intelligent declared that if Hussein authorized the use of biochemical weaponry, he would eb dealt with harshly.
With fucking nuclear weapons, as the entire damn world understood. As such, no biochemical agents were sued 9by Iraq, at least), and we wiped the floor with him.
He'll leave us alone because doing so certifies that he will remain at least as powerful as he currently is.
I previously mentioned the fact that Iraq has "citizens", an odd concept that our right-wing government seems to be unaware of. The capital city of Baghdad alone has over three million residents, and I'm fairly certain no more than seventy or eighty are Saddam Hussein; but we'll only kill one, at most eleven, Saddam Husseins in our Fred, whereas we will end the lives of coutnless non-Hussein individuals.
Hrm.
Also, the President has no right to declare war; that responsibility (often perceives as a privelige) rests solely in Congress, though they seem hell-bent on giving Bush unilateral authority to do whatever the fuck he wants.
Bush uses as justification the pre- Desert Storm act which allowed Old Prez Busho to attack Iraq at his leisure. This act was not emant as an open-ended invitation to attack Iraq at any time or for any reason, but for that specific moment, for that specific motivation.
I also protest the concept of instilling a "democratic" society in the nation.
First, we do not, ourselves, have a democratic society, and therefore cannot go about forcing it upon others.
Secondly, forced democracy is contradictory; it is a paradox, or an oxymoron, or soem such nonsense.
Thirdly, believe it or not, not all cultures are prepared for mirror copies of our government. Our representative republic requires a sense of equality between races, sexes, religions and social classes.
Hrm, equality between those groups within an Islamic nation. That's as likely as a team of quadripolegic monkeys winning the Super Bowl in 1773.
In addition, I believe the story that Iraq aided and abetted the 9/11 terrorists is a compelte and utter fabrication. I understand, though do not necessarily approve, the need our citizens feel for vengeance in those acts. If so, we should be bombing Saudi Arabia; I believe fifteen of the bombers were from that nation.
Why don't we Fred them, then?
Because Saudi Arabia is one of the few oil-producing nations which does not have open hostility towards the United States.
It's a political war, nothing more, nothing less (actually, it's also an exceptional example of the complete amorality of American culture, but I don't want to elaborate on that subject at this juncture). It's about oil; Hussein rules 10% of the world's known oil supplies. He doesn't like us. Saudi Arabia does, and so, therefore, we do not assault them, regardless of their crimes and impieties.
I hope your intestines have already taken your life in an attempt to end the suffering such a verbose essay must produce, you sociophobes.