Wow, what a surprise! Bush ignored NK and they had a nuke!
First I want to express more annoyance with the cable news stations. MSNBC has been showing this one 1 second clip of the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt bodyguard grabbing a paparazzi photographer by the neck. First off, who cares? Paparazzi are some of the lowest forms of life on this earth, so I'm glad to see it when they're hurt for invading people's privacy. Secondly, how is this news? Bodyguards always overreact because they're generally testosterone-laden men with a superiority complex. Finally, why do we need to see the 1 second clip 25 times? I got the picture the first time, thought it wasn't news and thought they should move past it to a real news story. Instead, we get the clip on repeat with analysis of the incident...this is why I wouldn't ever choose to watch MSNBC, Fox News or any of those other (for-profit) ones.
Today we were greeted with the news that Kim Jong Il had finally blown up that nuke that we all knew he had. The frightening part of this story is not the fact that North Korea has nukes, any idiot could figure that out years ago, but that we're led by a person who ignored this clear threat and went after one that was merely suspect. The problem with Kim Jong Il is that he's the spoiled child of a ruthless dictator, and therefore is even more dangerous. Frankly, I'm surprised that he doesn't strap chest plate and sword and fight gladiator matches in the center of PyongYang. Unfortunately, we aren't facing some fictionalized Roman Emporer on the silver screen, we're facing a lunatic who now has experience in blowing up nuclear devices. Never mind that the bomb would have been less powerful than the ones Truman ordered to kill 40,000+ people each in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over 60 years ago, those were still horrific devices containing the power and ferocity to vaporize an entire city.
To me this is a sign of a greater problem. We're still stuck on alienating those with different views than the international community. There is a reason why the "rogue" nations feel the need to develop nuclear arms, they are threatened. Saddam Hussein was a harsh ruler who ignored the conformity of rule that the UN is trying to promote and was overthrown because of it. He wasn't the first anti-American ruler to be disposed either and that is one major reason why anyone who holds beliefs contrary to our own is in the "axis-of-evil" according to Bush. It just makes it easier for us to accept this attempt at global domination by Western forces because the UN and its allies are "Good" and everyone else is "evil". Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there, we do not just blame the leadership for their actions but the people as well. Americans would be hard pressed to name the various sects of Islam doing battle, but would definitely be able to tell you that Osama Bin Laden is Muslim and hates America. How many people know which branch of Islam he supports?
So why did we attack Iraq when Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and Syria were bigger threats? Since we went in to Iraq, we have seen Syria launch attacks on Israel, Iran threaten to destabilize the region with nuclear development, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez making all kinds of attempts to embarrass the US and UN, and obviously North Korea's Taepodong II and Nuclear missile tests. Oh yeah, and our intrusion into Iraq's internal policies has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and 150,000+ Iraqis. Someone has to be held responsible for these mistakes and errors in judgement and it's not just Bush and the Republican party...it's Americans in general. If the American people were smart enough and had enough moxie, we'd be demanding this regime really step back and take a look at the pending disaster that is our foreign policy.
Without a great leader that unites the people, war is always a losing proposition. If you look at every victorious side in the history of war, there is a mythical figure who stands out as a key to victory. Who do we have in our leadership? I would love to see the Iraq wat function as a catalyst towards harmony and freedom in the Middle East so I can go and visit some Harems, but that's just not what is happening. The main reason is that social change can only come from within. You cannot force a majority to accept decisions that placate to the minority, it simply wont work. Animosity will explode in violence and corruption, essentially making things worse than before. This will always happen in any "regime change" and that will never change. So instead of using the sword to force nations to adopt more pro-west idealogies, why not make the people demand it from within? We could just as easily spread our propaganda with satellite, computer and internet technology and not risk any American lives in the process. Since the Middle East is about as stable as a 300 pound lineman in stilettos, we obviously have gone about it all wrong. NOw the only question is whether we can stabilize this region without destroying it.
Today we were greeted with the news that Kim Jong Il had finally blown up that nuke that we all knew he had. The frightening part of this story is not the fact that North Korea has nukes, any idiot could figure that out years ago, but that we're led by a person who ignored this clear threat and went after one that was merely suspect. The problem with Kim Jong Il is that he's the spoiled child of a ruthless dictator, and therefore is even more dangerous. Frankly, I'm surprised that he doesn't strap chest plate and sword and fight gladiator matches in the center of PyongYang. Unfortunately, we aren't facing some fictionalized Roman Emporer on the silver screen, we're facing a lunatic who now has experience in blowing up nuclear devices. Never mind that the bomb would have been less powerful than the ones Truman ordered to kill 40,000+ people each in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over 60 years ago, those were still horrific devices containing the power and ferocity to vaporize an entire city.
To me this is a sign of a greater problem. We're still stuck on alienating those with different views than the international community. There is a reason why the "rogue" nations feel the need to develop nuclear arms, they are threatened. Saddam Hussein was a harsh ruler who ignored the conformity of rule that the UN is trying to promote and was overthrown because of it. He wasn't the first anti-American ruler to be disposed either and that is one major reason why anyone who holds beliefs contrary to our own is in the "axis-of-evil" according to Bush. It just makes it easier for us to accept this attempt at global domination by Western forces because the UN and its allies are "Good" and everyone else is "evil". Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there, we do not just blame the leadership for their actions but the people as well. Americans would be hard pressed to name the various sects of Islam doing battle, but would definitely be able to tell you that Osama Bin Laden is Muslim and hates America. How many people know which branch of Islam he supports?
So why did we attack Iraq when Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and Syria were bigger threats? Since we went in to Iraq, we have seen Syria launch attacks on Israel, Iran threaten to destabilize the region with nuclear development, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez making all kinds of attempts to embarrass the US and UN, and obviously North Korea's Taepodong II and Nuclear missile tests. Oh yeah, and our intrusion into Iraq's internal policies has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and 150,000+ Iraqis. Someone has to be held responsible for these mistakes and errors in judgement and it's not just Bush and the Republican party...it's Americans in general. If the American people were smart enough and had enough moxie, we'd be demanding this regime really step back and take a look at the pending disaster that is our foreign policy.
Without a great leader that unites the people, war is always a losing proposition. If you look at every victorious side in the history of war, there is a mythical figure who stands out as a key to victory. Who do we have in our leadership? I would love to see the Iraq wat function as a catalyst towards harmony and freedom in the Middle East so I can go and visit some Harems, but that's just not what is happening. The main reason is that social change can only come from within. You cannot force a majority to accept decisions that placate to the minority, it simply wont work. Animosity will explode in violence and corruption, essentially making things worse than before. This will always happen in any "regime change" and that will never change. So instead of using the sword to force nations to adopt more pro-west idealogies, why not make the people demand it from within? We could just as easily spread our propaganda with satellite, computer and internet technology and not risk any American lives in the process. Since the Middle East is about as stable as a 300 pound lineman in stilettos, we obviously have gone about it all wrong. NOw the only question is whether we can stabilize this region without destroying it.
posted by Dan Pasternack at 3:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home