... either of these men were still running our country, we would all be drinking the finest wines out of golden-plated bald eagle skulls...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsymvcqVc1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCrovnNGdSg
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Tom Tancredo: Presidential Candidate, Fucking Tool
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/
Tom Tancredo thinks it’s a good idea to retaliate by bombing Mecca if we are attacked by “The Terrorists” again. Also, Tom Tancredo thinks that if we are flooded by illegal Mexican immigrants we should bomb the Christian holy sites in Israel because most of them are Catholic. Tom Tancredo also feels it’s a reasonable idea to bomb Greenland if any “Terrorists” from Iceland attack the homeland because, let’s be honest, nobody thinks they’re different countries.
This is the kind of crap that got us stuck up to our nipples in sand and corpses in Iraq, a complete lack of intellectual curiosity and general ignorance about the world outside our borders. If Tom Tancredo really thinks this, then he is a dangerous and ignorant bastard. It’s almost too obvious, but let’s recap the ways his foreign policy is horribly, horribly wrong:
1- What good would come out of this? Bombing Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, is a purely symbolic act. I think I understand what Tancredo’s real meaning is, that we need to be on the offensive against Saudi Arabia, and I agree- the most recent National Intelligence Estimate showed that they were actually the majority of the insurgent fighters in Iraq killing our soldiers and bombing innocent people. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis as well, so most of the saber-rattling about Iran funding the insurgency and military action against them is woefully misplaced. However, bombing Mecca would do nothing except encourage and partially legitimize more Islamic fundamentalist fury.
If Tancredo could put a coherent thought together through his fire-and-brimstone haze, he probably would realize that if we needed to attack Saudi Arabia (and by needed to attack I’m not even sure what circumstances would dictate that), an assault on the country’s capital and largest city, Riyadh, would be much more practical, no?
2- A bigger problem with this idea is the general premise of “carpet bombing to exact revenge” theory we have practiced militarily the past forty years. Seriously, have we not gotten the picture yet? Stopping terrorists and terrorist attacks is not going to be stopped my an army, it’s going to be stopped by solid, diligent police work. We’re trying to put out a giant grease fire with a high-pressure water hose- sure, some of it may go out, but we’re not really solving the problem. Flames will still remain, and as long as they’re still around they can spread.
By bombing the shit out of all of these countries we’re not giving their citizens a very good impression of our country. Think about it: people born in the middle east the last twenty-five years have seen us attack Iraq in Kuwait, and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. We also funded a proxy cold war through the Taliban in Afghanistan, stuck our noses into Iranian politics and have bombed several targets in Pakistan. Now, some of these were legitimate causes, but how would you feel about the United States if you were a 22 yr-old unemployed man in Afghanistan?
We’re incredibly lucky we haven’t had any further terrorist attacks in this country, no thanks to the Bush Administration’s unwillingness to fully implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations to strengthen our security. Great Britain, on the other hand, is not lucky to have stopped the few terrorist attacks they have, they’ve deserved it, simply because they view fighting terrorism in a different way. They recognize that instead of a “shock and awe” policy, using their police and government law enforcement agencies to combat these things on a micro level. We can’t stop them from trying to attack us, especially by blowing them up. What we can do is respect their culture, withdraw our troops from an occupying position in their countries, and guard our borders with as much intelligence and care as possible. The whole idea of “fighting them over there so they don’t follow us home” is having the opposite effect- we’re disenfranchising hundreds and thousands of people, and this is what will cause them to follow us home.
3- How does Tom Tancredo know that it would be Saudis that attacked us? Here’s a scenario: we bomb Iran. Iran is pissed and attacks Toronto. Canada is now pissed and attacks the Iranians themselves, who ally themselves with the Saudis and the Syrians who Canada is also forced to attack. Of course, the Brits and Americans can’t let a good fight go and now we have a giant clusterfuck of a world war.
Ridiculous? Of course, but who’s to say these things can’t happen in result of this asinine idea? If someone attacks us, we have every right to defend ourselves. That’s why I believe the overthrow of the Taliban, financiers of 9/11, was a legitimate cause. But then we decide it’s a good idea to invade Iraq, which scares the Iranians into thinking they’re next so they step up their nuclear-weapons programs, and on and on and on. Why do we insist on provoking everyone? By taking the fight to the people who deserve it we can act justly. By invading a sovereign country that was no threat to us we just made the mess bigger.
4- Here’s a quote from the genius himself:
“I’m telling you right now that anybody that would suggest that we should take anything like this off the table in order to deter that kind of event in the United States isn’t fit to be president of the United States,” the GOP presidential candidate said.
Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, called the comments “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy”. Here’s Tom Casey’s official profile from the State Department website:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/70066.htm
If this guy, who has risen to be the Spokesman for the State Department in George Bush’s administration, thinks you’re crazy for suggesting something like this, then I don’t know what to tell you. This basically means the ignorant chicken hawks that pushed us into this unnecessary war are telling you that you’re too aggressive. This is like Jeffery Dahmer calling another murderer “a real cannibalistic sicko”, but truly meaning it.
What’s the lesson here, kiddies? Voting for Tom Tancredo could be hazardous to our health. Who the fuck are the people giving this guy money, anyway? Oh, right, here’s a nice little list:
http://politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=P80003429*2008
Food for thought…
Tom Tancredo thinks it’s a good idea to retaliate by bombing Mecca if we are attacked by “The Terrorists” again. Also, Tom Tancredo thinks that if we are flooded by illegal Mexican immigrants we should bomb the Christian holy sites in Israel because most of them are Catholic. Tom Tancredo also feels it’s a reasonable idea to bomb Greenland if any “Terrorists” from Iceland attack the homeland because, let’s be honest, nobody thinks they’re different countries.
This is the kind of crap that got us stuck up to our nipples in sand and corpses in Iraq, a complete lack of intellectual curiosity and general ignorance about the world outside our borders. If Tom Tancredo really thinks this, then he is a dangerous and ignorant bastard. It’s almost too obvious, but let’s recap the ways his foreign policy is horribly, horribly wrong:
1- What good would come out of this? Bombing Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, is a purely symbolic act. I think I understand what Tancredo’s real meaning is, that we need to be on the offensive against Saudi Arabia, and I agree- the most recent National Intelligence Estimate showed that they were actually the majority of the insurgent fighters in Iraq killing our soldiers and bombing innocent people. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis as well, so most of the saber-rattling about Iran funding the insurgency and military action against them is woefully misplaced. However, bombing Mecca would do nothing except encourage and partially legitimize more Islamic fundamentalist fury.
If Tancredo could put a coherent thought together through his fire-and-brimstone haze, he probably would realize that if we needed to attack Saudi Arabia (and by needed to attack I’m not even sure what circumstances would dictate that), an assault on the country’s capital and largest city, Riyadh, would be much more practical, no?
2- A bigger problem with this idea is the general premise of “carpet bombing to exact revenge” theory we have practiced militarily the past forty years. Seriously, have we not gotten the picture yet? Stopping terrorists and terrorist attacks is not going to be stopped my an army, it’s going to be stopped by solid, diligent police work. We’re trying to put out a giant grease fire with a high-pressure water hose- sure, some of it may go out, but we’re not really solving the problem. Flames will still remain, and as long as they’re still around they can spread.
By bombing the shit out of all of these countries we’re not giving their citizens a very good impression of our country. Think about it: people born in the middle east the last twenty-five years have seen us attack Iraq in Kuwait, and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. We also funded a proxy cold war through the Taliban in Afghanistan, stuck our noses into Iranian politics and have bombed several targets in Pakistan. Now, some of these were legitimate causes, but how would you feel about the United States if you were a 22 yr-old unemployed man in Afghanistan?
We’re incredibly lucky we haven’t had any further terrorist attacks in this country, no thanks to the Bush Administration’s unwillingness to fully implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations to strengthen our security. Great Britain, on the other hand, is not lucky to have stopped the few terrorist attacks they have, they’ve deserved it, simply because they view fighting terrorism in a different way. They recognize that instead of a “shock and awe” policy, using their police and government law enforcement agencies to combat these things on a micro level. We can’t stop them from trying to attack us, especially by blowing them up. What we can do is respect their culture, withdraw our troops from an occupying position in their countries, and guard our borders with as much intelligence and care as possible. The whole idea of “fighting them over there so they don’t follow us home” is having the opposite effect- we’re disenfranchising hundreds and thousands of people, and this is what will cause them to follow us home.
3- How does Tom Tancredo know that it would be Saudis that attacked us? Here’s a scenario: we bomb Iran. Iran is pissed and attacks Toronto. Canada is now pissed and attacks the Iranians themselves, who ally themselves with the Saudis and the Syrians who Canada is also forced to attack. Of course, the Brits and Americans can’t let a good fight go and now we have a giant clusterfuck of a world war.
Ridiculous? Of course, but who’s to say these things can’t happen in result of this asinine idea? If someone attacks us, we have every right to defend ourselves. That’s why I believe the overthrow of the Taliban, financiers of 9/11, was a legitimate cause. But then we decide it’s a good idea to invade Iraq, which scares the Iranians into thinking they’re next so they step up their nuclear-weapons programs, and on and on and on. Why do we insist on provoking everyone? By taking the fight to the people who deserve it we can act justly. By invading a sovereign country that was no threat to us we just made the mess bigger.
4- Here’s a quote from the genius himself:
“I’m telling you right now that anybody that would suggest that we should take anything like this off the table in order to deter that kind of event in the United States isn’t fit to be president of the United States,” the GOP presidential candidate said.
Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, called the comments “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy”. Here’s Tom Casey’s official profile from the State Department website:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/70066.htm
If this guy, who has risen to be the Spokesman for the State Department in George Bush’s administration, thinks you’re crazy for suggesting something like this, then I don’t know what to tell you. This basically means the ignorant chicken hawks that pushed us into this unnecessary war are telling you that you’re too aggressive. This is like Jeffery Dahmer calling another murderer “a real cannibalistic sicko”, but truly meaning it.
What’s the lesson here, kiddies? Voting for Tom Tancredo could be hazardous to our health. Who the fuck are the people giving this guy money, anyway? Oh, right, here’s a nice little list:
http://politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=P80003429*2008
Food for thought…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
