Dennis Miller on THE WAR (from BCO)

[VangelicSurgeon]

"TRYING TO HELP"
By Dennis Miller

All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can help.

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!"). So with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few important facts. Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:

1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military
Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panicks at its inability
to respond to your inquiry.

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves.

5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT
seek UN approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only plays one on TV.

7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.

8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but
don't believe in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may
be able to get is as an Ivy League college professor.

9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500 year of Islam.

10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and
women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these
issues. They deserve our unreserved support.

I hope this helps.

 

[ChromeLife]

That rocks.

 

[deadair]

::high five::

 

[xfer]

wow.

anyway, I don't think Islam has been fucked globally for five hundred years...it's only since 1979ish that a lot of support went into radicalism, right?

 

[VangelicSurgeon]

oh, I definilty don't agree with him on that one. Also people seem to forget that France was a heavyweight in the 18th and 19th centuries, militarily speaking.

 

[xfer]

5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN approval before they try to kill us.

From the Jerusalem Post:

"...an op-ed by Saul Singer strove to put the outbreak of war in the context of recent history: "September 11 and March 20 were both about changing the psychology of the world: the former to pound it into fear and submission, the latter to inculcate the same dread into the terror network itself." He concluded: The meaning of March 20 is that the United States is willing to defy an interpretation of international law that protects rogue regimes at the expense of their victims. Terrorism has been a way for these regimes to go under the radar screen of international law, with the purpose of overturning the world order. America has just lowered this radar screen and said: We will not let you overturn our order, we will overturn yours."

In some ways, this pre-emptive war stuff is like when guns started being used in warfare instead of swords. We may see it as very dishonorable, but if we don't use them while the opposition does, we'll get annihilated. I generally fall into the camp of "take the high ground, even if it hurts you"; for example, the Israeli military doing house-to-house excursions into Jenin and losing handfuls of soldiers instead of just rocketing the camp and losing zero (but killing many more innocent civilians). Nevertheless, sometimes in history comes a sea change, and will this be one of those? Only time will tell.

 

[xfer]

actually, josh:

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female
schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - ...

 

[VangelicSurgeon]

AHAHAHAHAHAH OK I stand gladly corrected...

 

[deadair]

that list... amazing

 

[FalseTodd]

Alot of what he says is based on the so far baseless premise that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are best buddies. Bin Laden himself described the Iraqi government as "infidels" in his last public address. I have seen no evidence to rationalize a tie-in to the war on terrorism.

 

[xfer]

I think Iraq and Al-Qaeda don't have the connections Bush says they does, but that doesn't mean they would never share resources to achieve the same goals (like, Iraq and Al-Qaeda both DO seem to have Ansar-al-Islam connections). It's like the United States and Saudi Arabia--we hate what each other stands for yet have this loathesome alliance (mostly so we can hand prisoners over to them to torture), and even though we will likely be fighting a war with them within a decade, we still pass them weapons to use on our mutual enemies: the Islamists.

 

[xfer]

I really must re-iterate that I don't think Iraq and the War on Terrorism tie in in any way except very indirectly--that is, the fall of Iraq will theoretically pave the way for the fall of active and passive terror client states throughout the Mideast. But Bush can't say that, because that would mean World War III.

 

[FalseTodd]

I'm just saying that when you say "terrorist" most people think "Islam" and "Middle-East" and who gives a shit what particular country? Right after 9/11 I heard some bastard on this call-in show say we were going to have to have a draft because there were 1.25 billion people in the mideast or whatever.

Cause it's all their fault and we have to shoot everyone in that part of the world. Good lord.

The terrorist tie-in infuriates me cause I think it's been a very successful snow-job on the part of our government.

 

[xfer]

Well, it infuriates me as well, but I blame the American people as well as the government. If we weren't so selfish, the government wouldn't feel the need to make us be the ones in danger before we support anything that might kill our troops. How many people did I hear--conservative and liberal alike--expressing the Pat Buchanan-like statements "It's not our responsibility" and "Why should our troops die when we're not really in danger?" and "Let the Iraqis take care of it themselves". So Iraqi deaths under Saddam are fine, but the deaths of American soldiers are unacceptable?

So the government has to shock and scare us (anyone see Bowling for Columbine?) so we say "Golly gee, it's not just brown Iraqis dying! We could die, too! Go on in, Bush!".

It's a shit tactic, especially because I think America should adopt a policy of showing poor nations they can trust us by telling the truth as much as possible. But I blame more than just the Administration for why it was done.

 

[demon talented]

That list... is among the best things I've seen all month. (The French Military History one, although the Miller one was good too.)

 

[Stultus]

7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.

Point being?

10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They deserve our unreserved support.

I cannot help but be left with a bad taste in my mouth after reading this last one.




The French provinces of Nice, Piedmont, Alsace and Lorraine are all testaments of (long ago) French millitary victories.

 

[xfer]

I hate the "pro-troops" designation of pro-war activists; it's as intellectually dishonest as calling abortion activisits "anti-life" or "anti-choice". And worse, it's totally divorced from the issue and promotes a "my country right or wrong attitude"..."no matter what our troops do now or in the future EVER, even flamethrowering children in English kindergartens, I'm PRO-TROOPS!"

 

[azal]

yeah those people are shit bags and only use that stance because they are either really dumb and don't even know what's going on, or they are smart enough to realize that there is no good reason for going to war, but are too afraid to be considered "unpatriotic" so they cling to the whole "I stand behind my president and our troops" thing.

they should all drink a vile of Pamela Anderson's hep-tainted blood.

 

[xfer]

both the pro- and anti-war people are also careful to wave "pro-troops" signs. stupid. i fucking hate lip service.

 

[azal]

the anti war dudes need to bring out the retro "Baby Killer" signs.