2009-12-02
Iraqi Shoe Sale
We all remember the racist arsewipe who threw a shoe at Bush. Now the arsehole got a shoe thrown back at him, in a bit of cosmic justice.
The importance of this event is once again highlighting the fact that in every country, people are radically divided. There is no such thing as "Arab unity" or "Muslim unity". And the importance of that is that you are basically doing the wrong thing if you just try to nuke all these groups out of existence. After 9/11, that's exactly what lots of Americans had on their mind, for legitimate reasons.
No, the enemy is ideological, rather than racial or religious. It's true that many groups have been indoctrinated with racial hatred and religious bigotry (as well as both things coming naturally), but every society has its rebels, and those rebels will "interpret" the Koran to match their preconceived ideas of what is good and bad, no matter how much bad stuff is pointed out to them. If you want to see this for yourself, and can't be bothered sifting through all the bad Muslims to find a good one, it's easier to try on a Christian. Just go and stick Matthew 5 vs 17-20 and Leviticus 11 vs 7 in their face and try to get them to stop eating pork. There's zero chance of getting them to confess a lifetime of sin, a guaranteed spot in Hell, and a pledge to cease and desist from now on. The most you will get is some tortured logic worthy of a Special Olympics.
Anyway, the good Iraqi told the truth - that the original shoe-thrower was working for dictatorship in Iraq.
And in other news, Obama has decided to do a surge and withdrawal. Some of these things are quite good. It's good to get "military feedback", ie finding out what can be done with minimal forces. What happened in late 2001 in Afghanistan is the ultimate form of that. And British rule in India is another example. Hell, perhaps British rule in Australia is even better. In Australia the British succeeded in getting the ideology of freedom internalized in Australians before leaving. Obviously there were extenuating circumstances, like the fact that the Australians came from Britain in the first place, but it's the general principle. The sort of enthusiasm you see in the Baltics.
Anyway, I would like to see how little effort is required to keep Afghanistan, not so much "in check" but "reasonably free". Once again, if the US role can be limited to training, and preventing a military coup, and funding the Afghan military, then that would be great feedback to show "war really works".
And once again, the litmus test for war. If you have an opportunity to liberate people, and you can't see any security risk to the free world by doing so - then do it! When you're liberating people from a hostile dictatorship it's a slam dunk. You already have an enemy, so instead of a security risk, you get a security windfall in the process of liberating people.
When selling it to the mothers of the dead US soldiers, put it the other way around. ie you're eliminating a security risk and much of the suffering population was very grateful for your son/daughter's sacrifice too. When we run out of obvious hostiles, the argument will need to be modified a bit, but whatever is required to get the yanks in, do it or say it, as required.
And if you can get some layabouts like Australia to join in, that would be a bloody good move too.
There were some Northern Alliance videos posted on youtube. I'll have to see if there's been any progress in getting subtitles for them. I'd like to know what these allies of mine were saying as they drove the Taliban out, after a very long struggle.
|
The importance of this event is once again highlighting the fact that in every country, people are radically divided. There is no such thing as "Arab unity" or "Muslim unity". And the importance of that is that you are basically doing the wrong thing if you just try to nuke all these groups out of existence. After 9/11, that's exactly what lots of Americans had on their mind, for legitimate reasons.
No, the enemy is ideological, rather than racial or religious. It's true that many groups have been indoctrinated with racial hatred and religious bigotry (as well as both things coming naturally), but every society has its rebels, and those rebels will "interpret" the Koran to match their preconceived ideas of what is good and bad, no matter how much bad stuff is pointed out to them. If you want to see this for yourself, and can't be bothered sifting through all the bad Muslims to find a good one, it's easier to try on a Christian. Just go and stick Matthew 5 vs 17-20 and Leviticus 11 vs 7 in their face and try to get them to stop eating pork. There's zero chance of getting them to confess a lifetime of sin, a guaranteed spot in Hell, and a pledge to cease and desist from now on. The most you will get is some tortured logic worthy of a Special Olympics.
Anyway, the good Iraqi told the truth - that the original shoe-thrower was working for dictatorship in Iraq.
And in other news, Obama has decided to do a surge and withdrawal. Some of these things are quite good. It's good to get "military feedback", ie finding out what can be done with minimal forces. What happened in late 2001 in Afghanistan is the ultimate form of that. And British rule in India is another example. Hell, perhaps British rule in Australia is even better. In Australia the British succeeded in getting the ideology of freedom internalized in Australians before leaving. Obviously there were extenuating circumstances, like the fact that the Australians came from Britain in the first place, but it's the general principle. The sort of enthusiasm you see in the Baltics.
Anyway, I would like to see how little effort is required to keep Afghanistan, not so much "in check" but "reasonably free". Once again, if the US role can be limited to training, and preventing a military coup, and funding the Afghan military, then that would be great feedback to show "war really works".
And once again, the litmus test for war. If you have an opportunity to liberate people, and you can't see any security risk to the free world by doing so - then do it! When you're liberating people from a hostile dictatorship it's a slam dunk. You already have an enemy, so instead of a security risk, you get a security windfall in the process of liberating people.
When selling it to the mothers of the dead US soldiers, put it the other way around. ie you're eliminating a security risk and much of the suffering population was very grateful for your son/daughter's sacrifice too. When we run out of obvious hostiles, the argument will need to be modified a bit, but whatever is required to get the yanks in, do it or say it, as required.
And if you can get some layabouts like Australia to join in, that would be a bloody good move too.
There were some Northern Alliance videos posted on youtube. I'll have to see if there's been any progress in getting subtitles for them. I'd like to know what these allies of mine were saying as they drove the Taliban out, after a very long struggle.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 17:16 
