For the first time in memory I shall vote straight Republican. I have two reasons for this departure from my standard voting practices
( Read more... )
We were wrong to hit Iraq. Given the number and variety of countries involved in the bad intelligence that got Congress all riled up enough to approve the invasion I don't think it was a deliberate deception by the GOP, but the continued fucknuttery going on over there is a cause for a great deal of concern. We're already there and we've already blown it up, so we really need to get it together before we leave. If things are still boffed up when we withdraw, then that's a loss by default and the violent Muslim crowd will use that as one more feather in their cap showing that even a swarm of gnats can fell the elephant if the bite long enough.
I do disagree with the Democrat party as a whole on the issue of terror. To date I have seen not a single example of Democratic policy toward handling the growing Islamic violence across the globe. On the whole they want to blame our foreign policy, bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. That argument doesn't wash with me, since a number of countries with "better" foreign policy are still being attacked by mobs that want to reestablish the Caliphate. Violence is inevitable, the only decision we have to make is whether we're going to fight on someone else's turf or wait until it gets over here.
As for fighting Islam, I think we need to take the gloves off. Stop treating masjids like holy ground. The jihadists have shown they have no compunctions with using them as arms depositories and bases of attack. Stop pussy-footing around the issue and come out and say "There is a war between Islam and the West." We have no hope in winning this war if half the country refuses to even admit there is a war in the first place.
As for Republican corruption, well that's really nothing new. They've been slimey for decades. The line-item veto doesn't come into play, since Clinton tried awful hard to get it himself. The Geneva Conventions don't apply either, since they specifically protect lawful combatants. According to the definitions with the conventions themselves, the terrorists and jihadists are non-lawful and therefore unprotected. Civil rights? I'm concerned that if the Dems get their way, we'll have Islamic enclaves in America with the right to enforce Sharia upon its members. Bye-bye civil rights.
I am disinclined to believe that it was not active asshattery that lead to an invasion of Iraq. It looks to me like it was an "any excuse" option. What the fuck did Iraq have anything to do with anything else at all? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing, man, nothing. So we thought they had some illegal weapons. Well, what fucking puny despotic nation these days doesn't? Why haven't we gone after, say, North Korea? Or pick-your-dictatorship in Africa, maybe? Or, you know, any other middle-eastern nation? And why exactly did we leave Afghanistan just kinda sitting there to rot, after bombing the shit out of it?
And besides, is it really our job to be toppling minor tyrants on a whim?
It's pretty wrong to declare war on a religion. It's not the religion that's the problem. Shit, the Koran is pretty reasonable on a lot of issues, particularly if you ignore the whole "prophet mohammad" nonsense. Nah, the problem is what the problem always is - people. Imagine not having the legal system to keep Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps and friends in check - instead, the legal system would actively encourage them, and even give them guns and props for using them. Middle america would begin to look a lot like the middle east, i wager. So, stop giving them goddamn money in foreign aide, assassinate a few, and let the rest duke it out amongst themselves. Then stop the "great satan" bit and get on with life.
Ahem. Regarding Republican corruption. Just because there's a precedent for something happening doesn't mean it's OK. That's sort of like saying "so many rapes happened this year, that means it must be morally OK! Accept it and move on!"
The line-item veto -does- come into play. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton tried and failed to get them, so he didn't. Bush, however, has given himself that right. Look up "signing statements" - he adds a blanket statement to everything he passes (in what's supposed to be a press release about why he signed a bill into law). Most of them say that he maintains the right to selectively enforce portions of the bill.
They're "non-lawful" combatants, so we get to torture them? That's a brilliant leap. If everyone is a "non-lawful" combatant and our enemy is a non-existant entity, that means we get to do whatever we want, right? That's reaaaaal comforting. :/ No damn way.
You are right, of course, that the Dems are mostly a bunch of yes-men who will agree whenever it suits public opinion. And I don't think they've really proposed anything workable for dealing with Iraq, either - but they do acknowledge that something is fucked up. I'd personally rather like to give someone else a chance to handle the mess - the current Reps aren't exactly doing a great job at it, and I'd like to give someone else a go now.
We have Amish enclaves here in the US. Why don't we bomb them? Except then we'd lose that vital potato-salad and rocking-chair economy. Maybe muslims in america should get together and start making quaint but delicious foods for mass consumption at picnics, then their civil rights violations would be OK.
I do disagree with the Democrat party as a whole on the issue of terror. To date I have seen not a single example of Democratic policy toward handling the growing Islamic violence across the globe. On the whole they want to blame our foreign policy, bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. That argument doesn't wash with me, since a number of countries with "better" foreign policy are still being attacked by mobs that want to reestablish the Caliphate. Violence is inevitable, the only decision we have to make is whether we're going to fight on someone else's turf or wait until it gets over here.
As for fighting Islam, I think we need to take the gloves off. Stop treating masjids like holy ground. The jihadists have shown they have no compunctions with using them as arms depositories and bases of attack. Stop pussy-footing around the issue and come out and say "There is a war between Islam and the West." We have no hope in winning this war if half the country refuses to even admit there is a war in the first place.
As for Republican corruption, well that's really nothing new. They've been slimey for decades. The line-item veto doesn't come into play, since Clinton tried awful hard to get it himself. The Geneva Conventions don't apply either, since they specifically protect lawful combatants. According to the definitions with the conventions themselves, the terrorists and jihadists are non-lawful and therefore unprotected. Civil rights? I'm concerned that if the Dems get their way, we'll have Islamic enclaves in America with the right to enforce Sharia upon its members. Bye-bye civil rights.
Reply
And besides, is it really our job to be toppling minor tyrants on a whim?
It's pretty wrong to declare war on a religion. It's not the religion that's the problem. Shit, the Koran is pretty reasonable on a lot of issues, particularly if you ignore the whole "prophet mohammad" nonsense. Nah, the problem is what the problem always is - people. Imagine not having the legal system to keep Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps and friends in check - instead, the legal system would actively encourage them, and even give them guns and props for using them. Middle america would begin to look a lot like the middle east, i wager. So, stop giving them goddamn money in foreign aide, assassinate a few, and let the rest duke it out amongst themselves. Then stop the "great satan" bit and get on with life.
Ahem. Regarding Republican corruption. Just because there's a precedent for something happening doesn't mean it's OK. That's sort of like saying "so many rapes happened this year, that means it must be morally OK! Accept it and move on!"
The line-item veto -does- come into play. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton tried and failed to get them, so he didn't. Bush, however, has given himself that right. Look up "signing statements" - he adds a blanket statement to everything he passes (in what's supposed to be a press release about why he signed a bill into law). Most of them say that he maintains the right to selectively enforce portions of the bill.
They're "non-lawful" combatants, so we get to torture them? That's a brilliant leap. If everyone is a "non-lawful" combatant and our enemy is a non-existant entity, that means we get to do whatever we want, right? That's reaaaaal comforting. :/ No damn way.
You are right, of course, that the Dems are mostly a bunch of yes-men who will agree whenever it suits public opinion. And I don't think they've really proposed anything workable for dealing with Iraq, either - but they do acknowledge that something is fucked up. I'd personally rather like to give someone else a chance to handle the mess - the current Reps aren't exactly doing a great job at it, and I'd like to give someone else a go now.
We have Amish enclaves here in the US. Why don't we bomb them? Except then we'd lose that vital potato-salad and rocking-chair economy. Maybe muslims in america should get together and start making quaint but delicious foods for mass consumption at picnics, then their civil rights violations would be OK.
Reply
Leave a comment