2009-02-28
Yes You Can, Obama!
Open Letter to Barack Obama, President of the USA
Dear Sir.
Congratulations on your victory. I can't say that I was one of your supporters (but since I'm Australian, I didn't actually vote against you!), but I do support your position on some social issues (right to abortion, no right for citizen-owned nukes because some 200-year-old goofball made a vague reference to "right to bear arms" and no-one for the last 200 years has had sufficient grasp of the English language to rewrite it less vaguely and to explain that you're allowed to use baseball bats, and knives, but no divine right to RPGs, swords, nukes or any other particular weapon, including but not limited to handguns). But I digress.
The main reason I couldn't support you was because of your opposition to the Iraq war. I understand why you would oppose going to Iraq, although I wouldn't say that I respect that position. However, regardless of anything else, you have just earned my respect, by meeting people like me halfway.
This is something that was sorely missing from the anti-war side. I was hoping to meet an anti-war person who said "Look, I oppose the war for xyz reason, but I can see that it's important to you, and as my countryman, I'm happy to help you achieve your goals at the expense of some dictator in the Middle East". In years and years of debate, I have yet to meet such a Democrat.
Then I read this.
"But 35,000 to 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq will stay on into 2011 to advise Iraqi forces, target terror"
Even the low end of that is HEAPS. 35,000 troops for close to 3 years is truly wonderful. I would have been willing to have 200 special forces in fact. Or even zero (ie organize some Iraqi special forces to call in airstrikes). The main thing I wanted was those beautiful planes. What I was shit-scared of was a repeat of Vietnam where not even air support was supplied.
So, thankyou from the bottom of my heart for assisting the Iraqis, and assisting Republicans achieve their goals, even though it means you have had to give up some of your own personal goals. Quite frankly, if that isn't the sign of a true patriot, what is?
While I'm here, I know you have talked in the past about invading Pakistan. But before I start, let me tell you something. I work with the world as it is, not an imaginary one. As such, even though I would have liked Iran invaded next, since that is apparently off the table, I'm not going to bitch and moan when YOUR highest priority target (which I will almost certainly agree with also, even as a lower priority) is done next. I know Democrats are leery of going to war if it looks to others like the US might be getting some benefit from it (regardless of whether that is true or not by simply asking some of the supporters for their motives). However, they do support a war if it is both humanitarian and there's no obvious benefit for mysterious US multinational companies etc. That's "fine". I'll work within those limitations rather than pine for Utopia. As such, some obvious choices for liberation would be Zimbabwe, Somalia, DR Congo and Sudan.
But even better than that is the prospect of invading (it would also be a liberation for a minority) Pakistan. I really want to see those nukes collected, quite apart from the sideshow of terrorists running around in the Pakistani hills. Those nukes could do serious damage to India. India is an obnoxious, often anti-American and anti-humanity (think support for the USSR) country with a really crap hero, but it is at the end of the day peaceful and not much different from say France. These people are not actually enemies. Pakistan is. And much like criminals in the US aren't allowed to own handguns (thus apparently not a human right after all - rather a selective "right"), nor should Pakistan be allowed to own nukes. And in fact, given that Pakistan was created for no reason at all (India, despite its flaws, has always had a better political system than Pakistan so nothing was accomplished), the state should just be eliminated (and return to India, thus solving the territorial disputes too).
Pakistan will be a messy war (compared to Iraq where there was a large supply of supportive locals), so prepare lots of troops for a long war. There's going to be a lot of Pakistanis opposing the above. Take a look here for the scope of the problem. Moving more troops into Afghanistan is a great start for that objective. And despite any difficulties you may encounter there, changing the education system, closing down the child abuse centres (aka madrassas) and just as importantly this undescribable horror, at the end of the day, YES YOU CAN. While Iran is my preferred target (believed to be large supportive population, easy task, lets people explain the realities of theocracy), Pakistan is a high value target too. And needs to be done some time or another anyway.
After the parliament attacks in India, I had a debate with an Indian, who was miffed about having to hold back. I told him to wait until the Anglophones stop shooting before making his move, as he may find all his goals are accomplished without him having to do anything - which would only disrupt the strategy. Maybe now's the time for his main goal to be realised. Those nukes could be in your hands within your first term if you wanted. Without jeapordizing anything else. 50,000 troops in Iraq is peanuts. Similar numbers in Afghanistan. From here we can see Japan and Korea only have a small number. Germany and Kuwait too. And basically 90% of those troops could be pulled if required. Then there's the mass in the US. All thrown at Pakistan and the long pacification to allow reeducation. I know it's too much to hope that you would reeducate them all with Message 666. But if you just reeducate them with your own philosophy, that will be heaps better than what the madrassas are churning out.
Thankyou sir. And good luck with the rest of your presidency. I may not agree with the rest of it either (ie domestic economic policy), but it's unimportant compared to human rights and security, and you are doing great work there. Nothing wrong at all with boosting Afghan numbers and drawing down troops from Iraq. In fact, not just nothing wrong - that's what I would do too if those were the only theatres available. Obviously if I were in charge I would have redeployed the troops using Iran as a transit route, but nevermind. No-one should expect ALL of their personal agenda to be implemented immediately! You're doing good, sir. Real good. I was planning on writing a quite different letter, but before I got around to it, this BBC article came up and I'm full of joy, despite being immersed in the left-wing-o-sphere. FDR would be proud. God blesses you.
|
Dear Sir.
Congratulations on your victory. I can't say that I was one of your supporters (but since I'm Australian, I didn't actually vote against you!), but I do support your position on some social issues (right to abortion, no right for citizen-owned nukes because some 200-year-old goofball made a vague reference to "right to bear arms" and no-one for the last 200 years has had sufficient grasp of the English language to rewrite it less vaguely and to explain that you're allowed to use baseball bats, and knives, but no divine right to RPGs, swords, nukes or any other particular weapon, including but not limited to handguns). But I digress.
The main reason I couldn't support you was because of your opposition to the Iraq war. I understand why you would oppose going to Iraq, although I wouldn't say that I respect that position. However, regardless of anything else, you have just earned my respect, by meeting people like me halfway.
This is something that was sorely missing from the anti-war side. I was hoping to meet an anti-war person who said "Look, I oppose the war for xyz reason, but I can see that it's important to you, and as my countryman, I'm happy to help you achieve your goals at the expense of some dictator in the Middle East". In years and years of debate, I have yet to meet such a Democrat.
Then I read this.
"But 35,000 to 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq will stay on into 2011 to advise Iraqi forces, target terror"
Even the low end of that is HEAPS. 35,000 troops for close to 3 years is truly wonderful. I would have been willing to have 200 special forces in fact. Or even zero (ie organize some Iraqi special forces to call in airstrikes). The main thing I wanted was those beautiful planes. What I was shit-scared of was a repeat of Vietnam where not even air support was supplied.
So, thankyou from the bottom of my heart for assisting the Iraqis, and assisting Republicans achieve their goals, even though it means you have had to give up some of your own personal goals. Quite frankly, if that isn't the sign of a true patriot, what is?
While I'm here, I know you have talked in the past about invading Pakistan. But before I start, let me tell you something. I work with the world as it is, not an imaginary one. As such, even though I would have liked Iran invaded next, since that is apparently off the table, I'm not going to bitch and moan when YOUR highest priority target (which I will almost certainly agree with also, even as a lower priority) is done next. I know Democrats are leery of going to war if it looks to others like the US might be getting some benefit from it (regardless of whether that is true or not by simply asking some of the supporters for their motives). However, they do support a war if it is both humanitarian and there's no obvious benefit for mysterious US multinational companies etc. That's "fine". I'll work within those limitations rather than pine for Utopia. As such, some obvious choices for liberation would be Zimbabwe, Somalia, DR Congo and Sudan.
But even better than that is the prospect of invading (it would also be a liberation for a minority) Pakistan. I really want to see those nukes collected, quite apart from the sideshow of terrorists running around in the Pakistani hills. Those nukes could do serious damage to India. India is an obnoxious, often anti-American and anti-humanity (think support for the USSR) country with a really crap hero, but it is at the end of the day peaceful and not much different from say France. These people are not actually enemies. Pakistan is. And much like criminals in the US aren't allowed to own handguns (thus apparently not a human right after all - rather a selective "right"), nor should Pakistan be allowed to own nukes. And in fact, given that Pakistan was created for no reason at all (India, despite its flaws, has always had a better political system than Pakistan so nothing was accomplished), the state should just be eliminated (and return to India, thus solving the territorial disputes too).
Pakistan will be a messy war (compared to Iraq where there was a large supply of supportive locals), so prepare lots of troops for a long war. There's going to be a lot of Pakistanis opposing the above. Take a look here for the scope of the problem. Moving more troops into Afghanistan is a great start for that objective. And despite any difficulties you may encounter there, changing the education system, closing down the child abuse centres (aka madrassas) and just as importantly this undescribable horror, at the end of the day, YES YOU CAN. While Iran is my preferred target (believed to be large supportive population, easy task, lets people explain the realities of theocracy), Pakistan is a high value target too. And needs to be done some time or another anyway.
After the parliament attacks in India, I had a debate with an Indian, who was miffed about having to hold back. I told him to wait until the Anglophones stop shooting before making his move, as he may find all his goals are accomplished without him having to do anything - which would only disrupt the strategy. Maybe now's the time for his main goal to be realised. Those nukes could be in your hands within your first term if you wanted. Without jeapordizing anything else. 50,000 troops in Iraq is peanuts. Similar numbers in Afghanistan. From here we can see Japan and Korea only have a small number. Germany and Kuwait too. And basically 90% of those troops could be pulled if required. Then there's the mass in the US. All thrown at Pakistan and the long pacification to allow reeducation. I know it's too much to hope that you would reeducate them all with Message 666. But if you just reeducate them with your own philosophy, that will be heaps better than what the madrassas are churning out.
Thankyou sir. And good luck with the rest of your presidency. I may not agree with the rest of it either (ie domestic economic policy), but it's unimportant compared to human rights and security, and you are doing great work there. Nothing wrong at all with boosting Afghan numbers and drawing down troops from Iraq. In fact, not just nothing wrong - that's what I would do too if those were the only theatres available. Obviously if I were in charge I would have redeployed the troops using Iran as a transit route, but nevermind. No-one should expect ALL of their personal agenda to be implemented immediately! You're doing good, sir. Real good. I was planning on writing a quite different letter, but before I got around to it, this BBC article came up and I'm full of joy, despite being immersed in the left-wing-o-sphere. FDR would be proud. God blesses you.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 06:29 
