I'm sorry, but I couldn't sleep ... my sleep machine blew me full of air and I needed a place to expel it.
To All: This is an old one ... you've probably all heard one version or another, but appropriate nevertheless.
"Today in class", said Mrs. Johnson the kindergarten teacher, "were going to play a guessing game".
"Ok here we go, I'm thinking of a fruit, its yellow, and tastes good. Can anybody guess what it is I'm thinking of?" Dirty Little Johnnie is in the back of the room, franticaly raising his hand, but the teacher knows better and instead calls on Little Susie. "Its a lemon!" says Little Susie. "No," says the teacher, "I'm sorry Suzie, its a banana, but I'm glad to see you're thinking because that's the part that counts."
"Next one," says Mrs. Johnson. "I'm thinking of something round, red, a fruit and grows on trees ". "Its a ball," shouts out Little Bob. "No," says Mrs. Johnson, "Its an apple, but I'm glad to see you're thinking because that's the part that counts".
Before Mrs. Johnson can head him off, Little Johnny stands up and hollers out, "If you're not going to call on me, I've got one for you. I'm thinking of something that's long and hard, has a pink tip on it and I'm holding it in my pocket." Mrs. Johnson is completely aghast, "JOHNNY, that's completely inappropriate, it's off to the principal with you once again."
Dirty Little Johnnie stands there grinning and says, "No, Teacher, you're wrong, it's a pencil but I'm glad to see you're thinking 'cause that's the part that counts."
To all those who've responded or might now be contemplating and/or typing their response, I've already accomplished my first goal. You're thinking ... and that's the part that counts.
Uncle Hank: Sean sent me an email asking what it was you were saying. I told him you're a gentleman and since this is our first even passing communication since this fiasco began, I thought you were saying, "Rog, it's good to know you're still alive, but I don't want to fight." If my interpretation is correct, I'm sorry, but it's not going to be that easy. I too would love to chat about the lovely weather, but our country is coming apart at the seams and the time for silence is long past. Please forgive me. Unfortunately, I do know what I do. Sharpen your pencil and dive in.
Sir Thomas: Your point is well made. The most valuable lesson I believe we should have learned from our experience in Viet Nam (Admittedly, I honed this personal theory in the barrooms of Laramie, most notably the Buckhorn Bar, and not in Viet Nam.) is this. If a fight is inevitable, and you're going to find yourself in it, you hit them with everything you've got. (To hell with pool sticks, throw the table at'em if you can get your hands on it.) I think Uncle Hank was hinting at something similar.
Unfortunately, the neocon chickenhawks who now occupy the White House knew full well the American public wouldn't stand for a draft (the only way we were going to raise an army big enough to do the job.) Besides, if you implement the draft, there's a chance, small be it, their kids or their friends kids or their monetary supporters' kids (the poltical elite of our fine country) would be over there getting their asses shot off as well.) So instead they sold us this bogus bill of goods that claimed our "well trained, well equipped and all volunteer army" (made up predominantly of those who hadn't the financial wherewithal to further their educations or careers elsewhere) of less than 150 thousand would "shock and awe" them into submission and they'd be home quick as a wink.
Because they were chickenhawks (those who pretend to be tough, but in reality have never been in a fight in their entire silverspoonedlives) they ignored the advice of the military experts who told them a force at least twice that size would be required for the postwar "occupation." And now, because of their inherent arrogance, they can't admit they're wrong and continue to insist we've enough folks there to do the job. "It's just going to take a little time."
So now, to the point. What are you saying? Should we leave our troops there playing the role of the tin ducks in the shooting gallery (have I aged myself?)? Should we send more troops (and a draft will be necessary) to help the surrounded shoot their way out? If not, what happens if we leave?
Lady Jane: I've known you for a long, long time and you and I have seen things most mortal men will never see. I've never known you to be shy or afraid of anything, so I'm sorry, but your response is a bit of a cop out. And by replying you've eliminated any chance "to stay out of this." Why, in hell's name, do you "agree with this war and the reason's we're there?" It's not going to be that easy.
And now Sir Richard: I apologize, but I wasn't in possession of your email address and I'm certainly tickled you've joined the fray old "nemesis of verbosity." I've added Luke to the "To's" and if anybody has the Bailey boys' and girls' addresses, by all means, add them at will. And now on with it.
I thought all you ivy league chaps were familiar with Google amd Dictionary.com. Hell, even your old Uncle Rog (the low tech guy in a high tech world) can do a spelling search. Because we're translating from some Arabic tongue with which few of us are familiar, spelling can become a problem. Dictionary.com lists the following and none or all might be correct: Hezbollah, Hizbullah, Hizballah, and Hizbollah (loosely defined as "The Party of God," and herein may truly lie the "center of gravity of this war." If you judge someone solely by their language or spellling skills you potentially do yourself a disservice because some of the wisest folks I've known were poorly equipped for ink and pen. Just a thought.
You make some salient and insightful points to which I would add a twist. I shall attempt to follow your chronological order:
If you will, I take you once again to the barroom. You, Michael and I are having a cool one and chatting up this war. I disappoint you with my opinions to the point you poke me on the end of the nose. Should I then, in retaliation, swat Michael or you? Osama bin Laden and his boys attacked us. We attacked Iraq. Osama bin Laden is alive and kicking and the forces of the Taliban and al Qaeda grow stronger every day in Afghanistan while we're up to our butts in alligators in Iraq. Would you quantify this as a "a very well thought out neo conservative strategy of democratic realism?"
I believe the best thing we have going for us is the fact we are a Nation of laws. And, unfortunatley, in order to achieve the middle ground, we have to entertain both the right (neocon religious zealots) and the left (the ACLU membership card carrying liberals like myself) extremes. And through the years, the pendulum swings ... far to the left, far to the right ... with the bulk of its arc somewhere near the middle. If we abandon our laws (see McCarthy, Japaneese Internment and now the Bushies, et al.), we expose ourselves to anarchy the likes of which we're witnessing in Iraq today. Clinton took the high road ... they are criminals who allegedly committed a crime and we are governed by laws that dictate our response. Geedubya and his ilk have thrown the law books out the window and I fear our image about the world is tarnished as a result. The "One Eyed Cleric" who masterminded the WTC bombing will spend the rest of his days in a US prison. Osama bin Laden is still at large.
Good analogy, terror and disease. But I hope, should brain cancer befall me, the good doctors follow Clinton's lead and attempt to remove the cancer ... not the brain.
When the author refers to "the decrepit regimes that allow terrorism to take root and thrive in the region," I believe he speaks of virtually all the regimes now in power in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden comes to us from Saudi Arabia, Ali Sistani comes to us from Iran and the Pakistanis now harbor Osama. The root of Osama's message is "get the hell out and stay out" and it is echoed throughout the Middle East. All the colonial powers (and here I include the US) have supported incredibly horrible regimes (see Shah of Iran, Musharaff of Pakistan, Sadam of Iraq and countless others) who either possessed something of which we were in need (oil) and or represented the enemy of our enemy. This has been the American way and we are depised for it, not because of our "Western civilization and culture and mere being that they despise." With our support, their people have been raped, tortured, murdered and oppressed and they've had quite enough, thank you.
They told us, before going into Iraq, "it would be a quick war, we would shock and awe Saddam's army into submission, the people would greet us with flowers in their hands, oil revenues would pay for post war reconstruction, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was allied with Osama and etc., etc., etc.) Did they lie to us? Which of the above reasons for going to war has proved true? From the day Geedubya took office, the neocon puppeteers have pulled his strings. They were planning an invasion of Iraq long before they occupied the White House. 9/11 was simply their needed excuse. "The lie told oft' enough will soon become the truth" and their supposed "War on Terror" is just that.
Throughout the history of man, more people have died in the "name of God" than for all other causes combined. The notion that "my God, my Religion, is the true one" has driven the slaughter of countless millions. The Bush regime is by far and away the scariest bunch that has ever occupied the White House. They are all purported "men of God" and their "God is the true one." In swatting the Islamic hornet's nest, I can only hope, through their absolute ignorance, they haven't ignited the ultimate crusade.
Once again, you're thinkin' and that's the part that counts. No election in our history has been more important than the one upcoming. I hope there is a true leader among us who steps forward with a plan. Largely because of the efforts of the Bush White House, our country is sorely divided and I fear there won't be.
Uncle Rog
