Saturday, November 09, 2002
I am 21. I don't know how many others of you are registered with the draft board, but I am. When I talk about supporting war, I do so with the full knowledge that if it really escalates, my country may call on me to do what I swore to do when I got my citizenship and carry arms and murder our enemies.
If it comes to that, I will not shy away from my duty. So why do I support the war even though I may have to be part of it? Because the question is actually two questions. First, will it be to this country's advantage to restructure Iraq? I can name a few very good reasons why this is so. The second question: will I support this country and fight for its benefit? The answer is yes. So there's no dissonance.
I really don't think it will be so bad though. The analysts talking about urban combat on CNN are the same kind of people who claimed the DC sniper to be a caucasian loner. In reality, our government has learned much from Vietnam: namely that the people don't like their children coming home in body bags. Consider the way they handled Afghanistan. We didn't keep the war going until every last Talib was dead, and we aren't going around clearing out warlords for Karzai. We accomplished the very basic of our missions: removed Al Quada training camps and punished the Talibs for supporting Bin Ladin and not handing him over after 9/11. Once we did those things, we called the mission a success, and you don't hear much about Afghanistan anymore. Compare it to the drawn out conflict in Vietnam with no clear objectives. I think Iraq will be much the same. Here is how I would handle it. Apparently taking Baghdad would be hard and costly. So who says we need to take it? As our troops plow through the desert and Sadam's republican guard retreats into the city, we stop. We siege Baghdad. No trucks comming in with food. No airplanes flying over droping Syrian care packages or whatever. No one enters the city: but people are welcome to leave. Do you think Sadam's troops will be able to contain the flood of citizens trying to flee the besieged and starving city. Once they civilians are out, we can bomb. And even if people stick with Saddam and remain inside the city to starve, who cares? Let them stay in the city. Meanwhile our companies have taken over the oil rigs (those aren't in the city, are they?) and our troops are having a blast in the desert racing each other in Humvees and laughing at USO comics. Yeah it's not exactly as glorious as putting our flag over Sadam's castle, but it's good PR (cuz we kinda won. Certainly didn't lose) plus we got the oil, and no one is coming home in body bags. And how long do you think they'll be able to feed the Republican guard in a sieged city, anyway?
So that's why a 21 year old Cookiepus isn't afraid of Gulf War 2.
Monday, November 04, 2002
the much touted No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters with names and contact information for every student - whom they intend to "aggressively recruit", via mailing, phone calls and personal visits. Failure to provide this information will result in the school losing all federal funding."
A recruitment campaign, as agressive as it may be, is acceptable. As long as there's no draft, and you're ultimately free to do as you wish, there's no problem.
When you graduate highschool and enter college, in order to receive ANY financial aid from the government you must be registered with the DOD as a potential draftee. That means that anyone who's not amazingly wealthy and is going to college will have their name available to the DOD anyway.
So I don't see a big problem with targeting high school students to provide them, among other things, with a chance to make something more of themselves if they chose not to attend college, and to enlighten college-bound teens about reasons they might want to consider serving their country, not the least of which is having their tuition paid for by uncle samuel.
Remember the constitution? The bit where the federal government is charged (by us, the people) with providing for our common defense? Well, part of that effort must include recruitment of the most diverse types of people. Our military needs all sorts of people (remember those ads that list the dozens of ways "of being an army of one?") and if they chose to widen their recruitment spheres, more power to them.
Remember, you always have the right to say no. I don't see anything wrong with being REMINDED of ways in which you can serve your nation.
I don't think many people think man to man assrape to be a positive phenomenon. With the exception of some really hated criminals like that 20th 9/11 hijacker Mussaui, the DC snipers, etc,. I don't think the general populace wishes forced sodomy upon its prisoners.
Having said that, man rape is as old as mankind. One of the early american colonists (don't think it was John Smith) wrote about the sailors on the ships crossing the Atlantic witholding food from (mostly male) passengers until they were given ass.
The point is that man ass rape will happen in situations where women are absent. Can it be realistically prevented or curtailed? Not unless you can stomach paying taxes for 10 times the Dept. of Corrections budget - meaning that it's never going to happen.
So prison rape is inevitable, and as such it has entered our culture. Chris Rock's words "boy they WILL rape you in prison" are as funny for their delivery as because they are 100% true. What else are we going to do about it? We can only laugh at the image of tough criminals getting their delicate spinchsters rogered by an even bigger tougher inmate.
We're not cruel, but we're realistic. And at the end of the day, there IS something inherently, sophmorishly funny about assrape.
Sunday, November 03, 2002
Even as Iraq says
that a UN Security Council resolution on disarmament amounts to a "declaration of war" by the United States, Saudi Arabia, (allegedly a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism) says it will refuse United States the use its facilities
for possible military strikes. More notably,
Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told CNN television Sunday that his government will not enter into a war, even with United Nations backing.
As it is, it seems that UN support is eminent, since Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri says Baghdad will reject weapons inspections, even if the notion wins Security Council approval. Iraq, of course, can say anything it wants, since its fate is sealed. Saudi actions, to the contrary, deserve analysis.
The Saudi Monarchy isn't doing this to make sure it's on the winning side of the war. In that sense, it's got nothing to gain from losing points with the US and making buddies with the soon to be defeated Iraq.
The Saudis aren't looking to gain favor with their Arab neighbors, since those relationships are not as valuable (financially and militarily) as the one with the US.
Do the Saudis hope that to avert the war? Are they doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Or are they concerned that the war, and consequent American victory, will lower our dependence on Saudi oil?
Is this an attempt for the Saudi monarchy to avoid delay its own demise at the hands of the anti-Western masses? That's the only thing I can imagine being more important than good relations with the US.
Also, what does this mean for the US? Is Saudi cooperation really important? Or is it valuable only as a symbol of a coalition, while actual strategic value is not great?