The War on Terror has dragged on for more than four years now, but the beginning of the Year 2006 has already brought the fight to an unprecedented level. The United States of America has fired on Pakistan, a so-called “ally” in the war.
Understandably, this has caused outrage in the country and a call for the country’s president to step down has been issued by the populace. I mean for as far back as I can remember, attacking a foreign country was essentially a declaration of war. But will Pakistan fight? Of course not. They’ve got a pro-American president (well, the bribes have made him pro-American) and the US is still the only super power. Who would dare touch them? Plus you’ve got all those American politicians babbling about how much the regret the killing of innocent Pakistanis yet have the nerve in the same breath to say that it was justified.
This is really how it goes now isn’t it? The Americans do whatever the hell they want and then as long as they make up a half-assed apology, relating it with the war on terror, they’re off the hook in the world’s eyes. What’s next? Are they going to ban Canada’s beef again sometime and relate that to the war on terror? ‘Uh… in the interests of National Security® we must ban this beef that we believe may contain the chemicals needed to produce weapons of mass destruction.’
Let’s dissect a few of of these lawmakers’ comments. I shall be as sarcastic and cynical as written words will allow so bear with me here.
“Now, it’s a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?” Sen. Evan Bayh, asked rhetorically. “It’s like the wild, wild west out there. The Pakistani border’s a real problem.”
What are you supposed to do? You’re supposed to respect the rights of a foreign country. Next time I see some rowdiness going on across the border in Buffalo, maybe I should suggest sending the Canadian army (like we have one…) over on a peacekeeping mission and settle things down? If the US would only attack a country that’s not being controlled by a government that’s bowing under the weight of bribes.
“It’s a balancing act,” he said. “How do they go about trying to bring that area under control, cooperate with us without causing the kind of political problems that would destabilize the government?”
Easy, they stop cooperating with you. But then that wouldn’t make the White House too happy now would it? Oops, Pakistan’s got nukes. Let’s get ’em.
And Sen. Trent Lott added, “I would have a problem if we didn’t do it.”
“There’s no question that they’re still causing the death of millions of — or thousands of — innocent people and directing operations in Iraq,” said Lott, a Mississippi Republican. “Absolutely, we should do it.”
Oh this one’s just a gem. If I just had of left out who said those words, you could say the same thing of the White House couldn’t you? The White House policies are definitely causing the death of many many tens of thousands of innocent people and they’re directing the ops in Iraq. How ironic that this moron decided to say those words specifically.
“These people killed 3,000 Americans. They have to be brought to justice.”
Let’s turn this one around.
“These people have directly or indirectly killed over 100,000 Iraqis. They have to be brought to justice.”
Yes, that’s right, studies show that as of late 2004, there have been over 100,000 Iraqi deaths related in some way to the war there. That’s an absolutely gruesome number to sacrifice to try and get the guys who killed 3,000 American’s. In the business world you’d have to absolutely be the stupidest person to try and make back a $3000 loss by throwing away $100,000. And don’t think, even for a minute, that American lives are worth more than the lives of people you don’t know or care to know.
I’ll leave you with the following article. It’s a relatively old one and is probably highly biased but some interesting points are made.
[tags]war, terrorism, Pakistan[/tags]