I'm gonna try to post more often, really. Last night I wasn't anywhere near a computer, so I was unable to make a post yesterday. I ended up hanging out with some friends at the Mag. It seemed like there was a completely different dynamic there than for a typical Friday night. I'm not exactly sure what it was--there were the ususal mix of regulars & new people there, so that didn't seem out of the ordinary. It may have been the music. I'm not sure if they made any drastic changes to the jukebox in the past week or if it was just atypical shit was being played. I did notice they had 16 Horsepower's Sackcloth & Ashes CD, though. I really dig it--it's kinda like gothic bluegrass.

There was this one group of people dressed up in what seemed to be a Heaven & Hell theme--angels & devils (oddly enough, most of the men were angelic & most of the women diabolic). Someone told me it was one of the girl's birthday. It'd be pretty cool to get people to dress up for your birthday. If it were me, I would like every hot chick I know to dress up like hooker nuns on my birthday--boots, miniskirt/short-shorts, any cleavage-sporting top, & the nun's veil (preferably the kind w/ the wimple). Unfortunately, most of the chicks I know seem to be kinda apprehensive about the whole sacred/profane thing. However, my birthday isn't til August, so that gives me about four months to talk someone into it.

Burn in Hell
posted by El Bastardo at 7:01 PM

Okay, here it is, my first post of 2003. I know, I suck. You, my faithful readers (both of you), haven't been getting enough witty Bastard commentary because I've been too busy fucking off on the goddamn internet. Well, I'm gonna try & change that by posting more often (yeah, right).

Anyway, the big news is that we're at war with Iraq. Who didn't see that one coming? Well, I'm not a peacenik by any means, but I think invading Iraq was not the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein--I think the Bush administrations reasons for doing so were rather suspect. Let's start there, shall we?

1) Weapons of mass destruction: The White House has yet to deliver the "smoking gun" proving that Iraq has nukes. The Nigerian document was proven to be a forgery: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2444571
Now why would anyone forge something like that, hmmmm?
Granted, Saddam probably has been covering up shit since the end of the Gulf War, whether it be biological, chemical, &/or nuclear weapons/research, & the UN inspectors were being blown off & misdirected at every opportunity. However, there are plenty of other "rogue" states out there, & some of them, such as North Korea, already have nuclear weapons.

2) Saddam is a despot. True. But the same can be said of Kim Jong Il, King Fahd, Muammar Quadafi, Omar al-Bashir, Fidel Castro, et al. Are they next in our Great American Crusade?

3) Saddam supports terrorists, namely, Al-Queda. Though I have no doubt Iraq has ties to some terrorist groups, there is no evidence that Iraq has ever supported Al-Queda. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm Al-Queda's brand of fundamentalist extremeism is out of line with Iraq's more secularized government. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, about 40% of US citizens believe that Saddam was in some way responsible for 9/11. Fucktards.

If it were me, I would have sent in ninjas to deal with Saddam, rather than endanger our troops. But hey--it's a little late for ninjas, isn't it? Kicking Iraqi ass is going to be relatively easy, compared to securing a lasting peace. The reason Japan & Germany are two of our closest economic & political allies is because we stuck around after WWII, helped them rebuild, & showed them how democracy can work. What is needed is a Marshall Plan, which laid the groundwork for the European Union (whose economy, I'm told, dwarfs even that of the US) for the Middle East.

W, of course, doesn't seem to be thinking in those terms. Amount of $$ the White House requested Congress to budget for Afghanistan this year: 0. That's right, folks--not one motherfucking red cent! (Congress, however, still budgeted a few hundred million of their own accord). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm

Amount of $$$ offered to Turkey in order to deploy US troops from there (& rejected by the Turks): 6 billion (grants) & 24 billion (loans). Though they didn't let us deploy troops, we still ended up giving the Turks 1 billion in aid & 7.5 billion in loans. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2445722

Why is this a problem, you ask? Well, we really don't control that much in Afghanistan other than Kabul. It's still quite a mess. To abandon Afghanistan will give rise to the same chaos which allowed the Taliban to seize power in the first place, which is what happened when the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan in 1989. Of course, many of you fuckers will piss & moan about our hard-earned tax dollars going to support Iraq & Afghanistan, but it'll do far more to curb terrorism than some of the Orwellian tactics Ashcroft favors.

It's also mostly the US & the Brits who are involved in this war. The majority of the UN doesn't support it. Even George Bush's dad believes it's a bad idea to invade the Middle East without UN support. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

Why is this bad? Well, think about it. If, for example, say, Russia doesn't support the war on Iraq, what's to prevent them undermining our "cause" by, I don't know, selling anti-tank missles, nightvision goggles, & jamming equipment to Iraq? Will the Russians be next on our list? http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/03/24/russia/

So why are we really invading? The way I see it, Bush has at least three reasons, possibly more.

1) Vengeance. To finish what his father started. I also suspect there's quite a bit of "needing to prove myself to Daddy that I'm worth a shit" wrapped up in this as well.

2) Keep his approval ratings up. George Jr's domestic policy isn't exactly stellar & the economy's faltering. As long as he can keep people focused on the war, they're less likely to notice tax cuts for the rich & the erosion of civil liberties that so many of you sheep take for granted. Thankfully, we have some senators who realize that this war is gonna be costly. http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/03/26/news/top_news/894bb7c12c9b4e4986256cf500203fd7.txt

3) Oil. This is the big one, kiddies. There's a great article by Robert Dreyfuss that explains this shit far better than I can. http://www.leoweekly.com/archives/032603/feature.shtml In a nutshell, Dreyfuss explains that our current actions in the Gulf are to seize control of Iraq's oil supply. Since oil=power in the industrialized would, we would also be able to exert considerable influence over powerful nations, such as China. Instead of OPEC, we'd have US-PEC. Over the past 30 years, the US has had an increasingly larger presence in the Persian Gulf. This was increased greatly during the first Gulf War under the first Bush administration, which makes the following tidbit even more interesting: In 1989, Saddam spoke with the US ambassador to Iraq about his military build-up on the Kuwaiti border. The ambassador replied, “We [The United States] have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” This effectively gave Saddam the greenlight (or so he believed) to invade Kuwait. Once this happened, the US had a good reason to increase it's military presence in the Middle East. Was this a trap? Kinda plays out that way, doesn't it? On top of it all, is it any surprise that Dick Cheney's old firm Haliburton was just recently awarded the contract to "secure" Iraq's oil fields. http://www.msnbc.com/news/882109.asp

Anyway, say we do ultimately gain control of the oil supply? Is this a good thing? Possibly, but it also smacks of American (or Anglo-American, since the Brits are with us) imperialism, which could likely breed even more anti-American resentment. Or I could be completely wrong. Guess we'll just wait & see.

On another note, something else that really pisses me off is how the media is selling not only the War on Iraq(TM), but also the War on Terror(TM) to the American public. I mean, c'mon motherfuckers! Do we really need to see star-spangled "AMERICA AT WAR" logos on every newspaper or television story? For that shit, you motherfuckers should . . .

Burn in Hell.
posted by El Bastardo at 9:35 PM