Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An International Mother-In-Law
Fred On Everything ^ | February 3, 2003 | Fred Reed

Posted on 02/03/2003 5:01:05 AM PST by Garegaupa

Letting George Do It

Pondering The World's Mother-In-Law

I'm trying to understand American foreign policy. It's like oil-painting on a trampoline, but makes less sense. I'm not sure anybody could do it--not even if you took St. Augustine and Jimmy the Greek and Carl Friedrichs Gauss and wired them together in parallel.

It seems that we're going to blow up Iraq. Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies. Iraq is a primitive country and hasn't got a chance. That's convenient, and lots of fun, but it ain't war.

Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But…why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire?

Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe.

I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy.

Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really?

It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan twice, Laos, Lebanon twice, Iraq almost twice, Yemen, Angola, Kosovo, Cuba, Libya. We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan?

Why? Why always us? Can't we just, you know, spend an occasional Saturday night at home? North Korea is South Korea's problem, not ours, and South Korea is an industrial power. If it wants to defend itself, fine. If it doesn't, I don't care. Is Japan upset about North Korea? Then let Japan do something about it. Why are we always the International Mother?

What possible reason did we have for bombing Yugoslavia? Last I heard, Yugoslavia was in Europe. Granted, I haven't looked for a while. Maybe it moved to Mississippi or the outskirts of Detroit. Continental drift is like that. But if it's in Europe, I say it's Europe's problem. Let them bomb Yugoslavia till it squeaks. Or not. Why do I care? It's time Europe learned to diaper itself.

For that matter, why do we have troops in Europe? I don't get it. NATO was supposed to fight the Soviet Union, I thought, which we don't have one of.

Could we stop meddling for even a week? We're in Colombia and Mexico and Peru and God knows where because these folk work in the drug trade, and we have A Drug Problem. We have a drug problem because Americans want drugs. It's not Colombia's problem. It's our problem. Why don't we leave Colombia the hell alone?

Think about it. Suppose a Colombian crept up to you in a raincoat, peering around furtively, and whispered, "Hey, Meester, wanna buy some really good polio virus? Great stuff. You'll never walk again. Iron lung, guaranteed. Five bucks."

You would probably indicate that you didn't really need any polio just now. The Colombian would run off and starve, or jump his visa and get a job in construction. You can't sell what people won't buy. It's an economic law. (Unless you're the federal government, which consists of the compulsory sale of unwanted services. But Colombia isn't.)

Americans love drugs. Middle-schoolers through assisted living, black, white, blue collar, guttural lawyers in pricey turtle-neck sweaters, funny-looking urbanites, suburbanites with the little bag in the closet, country boys cutting ditchweed, growing hydroponic, cooking that righteous crank.

It's one of the biggest businesses in America. We'll pay any price, risk jail, do anything for our drugs. The cartel is just a service industry. Half the country wants them, and the other half doesn't have to take them. Why do we expect other countries to let us bomb their peasants to solve our problem?

If we have to poke our nose everywhere, could we at least stop being the Moral Nanny? Somebody said (me, actually) that the Brits fight for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for mommyish moral causes. Spare me.

It's embarrassing. Europe fought world wars to get the Germans off its back. We fought The War to End All War, and then to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and now Iraq and Korea are the Axes of Evil. (Whether this refers to malintentioned hatchets or indicates that the White House doesn't know that points can't be lines is unclear.) I don't want to be a Manichean baby-sitter.

Americans may need to get out more. I recently heard that ferret-like little man in the White House trying to give a speech about Iraq and how we're going to liberate Iraqis and it's for their own good and they ought to welcome us like rich relatives bringing free stuff. Any day now. Can't we put George back into his storage box in Roswell? Last time we were in Iraq, we killed 125,000 of their men, or some other wholesome number, wrecked the country, set up an embargo that starved 100,000 of their children to death, and established an aerial occupation of lots of their country.

But they're going to welcome us because George has good intentions. We're from the government, and we're here to help you….

Why are we embargoing Cuba? When the Soviets wanted to put runways and missiles there, it made sense. Now we're making life miserable for perfectly decent Cubans because we don't like that tiresome gas bag with the beard. Yes, I know. We're rally doing it because Castro runs an oppressive communist tyranny. Like China, with whom we trade like starving encyclopedia salesmen. Consistency and churchy moralism go so well together.

I give up. It's beyond me.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: completefool; idiot; zotthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 02/03/2003 5:01:05 AM PST by Garegaupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
This one needs a ZOT. The author is a complete idiot.
2 posted on 02/03/2003 5:11:45 AM PST by 11B3 (Let's hope that FEMA has some camps ready for the Left and the Muslims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
I give up. It's beyond me.....

Probably the only thoughtful piece of this crap.
3 posted on 02/03/2003 5:15:38 AM PST by madrastex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11B3
Hey - where's the barf alert? Or are you the author of this POS?
4 posted on 02/03/2003 5:17:10 AM PST by 11B3 (Let's hope that FEMA has some camps ready for the Left and the Muslims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
Oops - not myself, I meant Garegaupa.
5 posted on 02/03/2003 5:18:36 AM PST by 11B3 (Let's hope that FEMA has some camps ready for the Left and the Muslims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
"It's beyond me."

Yes, Fred. Clearly, it is.

6 posted on 02/03/2003 5:18:49 AM PST by lucyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11B3
No, I'm not the author.

And I think it ought to be perfectly acceptable to voice ones opinion, no matter what you and I think of it, without it getting classified as "barf".
7 posted on 02/03/2003 5:24:15 AM PST by Garegaupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
Where's the barf alert for this? You made me lose my breakfast.
8 posted on 02/03/2003 5:32:03 AM PST by dennisw (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php <AND> http://rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 11B3; Garegaupa; madrastex; dennisw; lucyblue
You may disagree with Fred on this subject (as do I) but you clearly do not know Fred. He is definitely not an idiot.
9 posted on 02/03/2003 5:44:02 AM PST by BufordP (He's as liberal and stupid as Col David Hackworth</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
Nine posts into this thing, and all anyone is doing is attacking/defending the author.

I wish someone would comment on the specific points.

Always killing the messenger.

10 posted on 02/03/2003 5:51:04 AM PST by Beenliedto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
I support the troops. As for Fred's points on foreign policy, I'm in his camp. I think for every country that thumbs their nose at us (Germany, South Korea, etc.) we should bug out unless it concerns our national security/interests.
11 posted on 02/03/2003 5:56:27 AM PST by BufordP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
I usually agree with Fred and I totally agree with him on the drug section of this rant....

I didn't know he got so dovish.....it is possible that he wrote this as parody as he has done that before?

12 posted on 02/03/2003 6:03:20 AM PST by alisasny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
"Spare me."

Bite me.
13 posted on 02/03/2003 6:11:49 AM PST by FreepLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
"Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York"

......Good enough reason for me to blow up Iraq.
14 posted on 02/03/2003 6:25:21 AM PST by FReepazoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
Ok, you asked for a response to his "points". I only got so far before I gave up on him. Here's why:

"Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But…why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire? "

We're in a war on terrorism. Saddam helped and supported al-Qaeda. See the evidence in other threads on FR. You can look it up as well as I.

"Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe. "

Saddam had WMD in 1991 when he was charged with eliminating them. He had not as of 1998 when the last inspectors left. The current inspectors have not seen any evidence of him eliminating them. QED, he has WMD.


"I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy. "

WMD are an issue because we're in a war on terrorism. 3,000 people died through 4 hijacked airliners. How many would die through WMD? They're not allowable in a country with close ties to terrorism.

"Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really? "

How does Mr. Reed know he does not have nukes? He had a nuke reactor in 1981. He bought nuke material in 1989. How can he ignore all the evidence? Head in the sand?

"It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. "

Nobody else can and nobody cares. We care. To wit:

"Grenada,

We stopped a coup that replaced a democracy with a dictatorship.

the Philippines,

Um, what military action have we taken, other than against the terrorist group that kidnapped Americans?


"Panama,

We removed a dictator and established a democracy.

"Vietnam,

We held off a communist advance for 15 years and then surrendered, when we could have won.

"Cambodia,

We bombed them in connection with the Vietnam war, 30 years ago. Was that an issue?

"Afghanistan twice,

1st time, we resisted a communist take over through Muslim proxies--successfully. 2nd time, we attacked a terrorist state that directly supported al Qaeda, who had killed 3000 of our citizens. After the overthrow of the Taliban, the Afghanis cheered. Which do you object to, and why?

"Laos,

Bombing in connection with Vietnam and against communism.

"Lebanon twice,

We had US citizens captured. We had Marines killed. The place had descended to anarchy from its previous position as the financial capital of the Mideast. How should we respond when US citizens are kidnapped?

"Iraq almost twice,

What does this mean?

"Yemen,

War on terrorism--any where, any time, no place to hide. Do you object to killing murderers of US citizens?

"Angola,

I missed this one. When?

"Kosovo,

The most ill-advised of our foreign policy ventures. I did not support our intervention either.

"Cuba,

The Bay of Pigs would have overthrown Castro with air support. Do you like Castro's Marxist dictatorship?

"Libya.

The bombed an airliner out of the skies with support from Libya. Should we support or oppose such bombing?

"We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan?

Have a plan to defeat NK in case of an invasion.

So there is my response. Is this what you wanted?
15 posted on 02/03/2003 7:30:47 AM PST by Forgiven_Sinner (Praying for the Kingdom of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Garegaupa
Good read. This guy if fun to read and insightful.
16 posted on 02/03/2003 7:42:42 AM PST by fish70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Ok, you asked for a response to his "points".

Actually, I didn't ask for a response. I was mearly pointing out the fact that too often folks answer this type of post by attacking the author, rather than by debating the material.

I do, however, appreciate your efforts. Nice post.

17 posted on 02/03/2003 8:53:25 AM PST by Beenliedto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
I was mearly pointing out the fact that too often folks answer this type of post by attacking the author, rather than by debating the material.

Well said, and my sentiments exactly. I posted this to get some debate, which is (as far as I can see, at least) what this forum is all about.

Let's leave The mindless bashing of other people's opinions to the liberals... :-)

18 posted on 02/03/2003 9:01:39 AM PST by Garegaupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
...but you clearly do not know Fred. He is definitely not an idiot.

I know him well, I read his column every week, and I totally love it (most of the time, at least)!

I knew this would cause an uproar here on FR, and that's why I posted it. However, I had expected a little more debate and a little less angry bashing. Well, maybe I asked for it...

19 posted on 02/03/2003 9:06:29 AM PST by Garegaupa (The Great Fred Fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
Nine posts into this thing, and all anyone is doing is attacking/defending the author.

I wish someone would comment on the specific points.

There's not much reason to. All his points seem to be based on facts or misapprehensions of facts at least a year old, several of them many decades old. They have already been discussed for quite some time, and further discussion would not be productive.

Several of his points do appear to be ... disingenuous, at best. He ignores the legal rationale for attacking Iraq, makes no mention of Just War Theory, ignores the findings of the Blix Report, and cavalierly dismisses WMDs as "nothing," adding, "I don't care [...] bombing won't help." I'm geniunely confused by the "Axes of Evil." Has the White House put out a statement with that misspelling? Does the author know, or care, that three points can indeed define more than one line, id est axes? Is he even aware that three states have been explicitly identified as the Axis of Evil? Does he understand that historical allusions are not meant to be geometrically correct? Who knows. Who cares. To top it all off, the guy quotes himself. Only Gene Ray can pull that off.

Sorry if I'm "killing the messenger." He looked pretty sickly when he got here.

20 posted on 02/03/2003 9:27:04 AM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson