As some of you know, I subscribe to World Nut Daily's news flashes so that you don't have to. In the latest news flash, I learned an interesting thing: Mit Romney is a terrorist supporter.
See, Mitt Romney sez that the way to get those darkies overseas to love us is to, like, be nice to them. Give them money to buy food and clothes. Build bridges and water treatment plants and roads for them. Open up health clinics and schools for them. That kinda thing. Like Hezbollah does. But any real Republican knows that darkies don't understand it when you're nice to them. The only thing darkies understand is force. That's why Hezbollah is so popular in Lebanon, because they kill so many Lebanese. Uhm, except they don't. They give the Lebanese people free food, run a construction company that builds bridges and houses for them, and so forth. Which darkies view as weakness and thus view you as someone to disdain if you do that kinda stuff for them. Which is why Hezbollah so unpopular in Lebanon. Except they aren't. WAH! Mommy, logic is making my Republican head hurt, make it stop, WAH!
So anyhow, the Mitster stuck his foot into his mouth. But never fear. I'm sure that, like with abortion, universal health insurance, gay marriage, and other such issues where the Mitster believed one thing before he believed another, next week he'll believe that the proper way to deal with those darkies overseas is to bomb and kill them, just like all good Republicans believe. Because, after all, being nice just isn't as much fun. Even if it actually works at gaining friends, unlike the bomb'em to the stone age thingy, but hey, he's a Republican. Logic? BWahahahhah!
-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Hello, Mr Penguin.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to connect two previously unconnected thoughts and see where this leads.
1). I was thinking of this the other night, how odd it is that I, as with many people who consider themselves to be "progressives" rather than "liberals," look to #26 Roosevelt as the spearhead of the movement (though it has evolved significantly), while said #26 was, in fact, a Republican.
Let it be understood, first of all, that both parties have also evolved significantly over the past 100 yrs, notably polarized under the Great Purge of Reagan (and I have heard from pundits just tonight how moderates are migrating from the Republican party, and for all appearances, it seems as if the same will soon be true of the Democrats).
One of the great criticisms against Roosevelt was his idea of "the policeman of the world," which involved an active overseas force.
Yet the time was one of colonialization, and the history of Africa over the past 100 yrs might be significantly different had America adopted a more interventionist strategy on that front.
And it was well before the UN had peacekeepers abroad-- well before the League of Nations, in fact-- so there was very little recourse for a multi-national force.
Conclusion: Roosevelt's policy was a good one for its times.
2). Thinking on Iraq, I would like to see US combat forces replaced by a combination of UN and Pan-Arab forces; but I believe we should have some remain to assist in the rebuilding of infrastructure, and other humanitarian missions.
Here's something else that somes up: New England Republicans have a historical notoriety of being far more progressive than the national Republican party. Also, the Repubs from Arizona have a history of being somewhat disconnected from the national party as a whole.
Romney's proposal seems to me to be fairly sound, and it probably would resonate well with other NE Repubs, but it seems rather bold to the embunkered Southerners.
Conclusion: Following the reign of Bush/Cheney, and given the present field of candidates, the Republican party will shift significantly toward the center; and perhaps for several years to come.
PT, the time when the United States had any moral standing or any standing at all for that matter to dictate or even suggest anything that might happen in or around Iraq is long, long over. All we can do is get out. Get out, and give money to whoever cleans up the mess we made, however they intend to clean up the mess. We have already proven that we are clumsy, inept, and utterly unsuited to ruling an Arab nation no matter how much of "our" oil it is sitting on top of. No plan by any American politician that does not include immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and the payment of hundreds of billions of dollars of reparations to the Iraqi people over the next ten years should be greeted with anything other than derisive laughter.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to face facts: The United States simply cannot fix Iraq. Time to get out and pay someone else who can.
- Badtux the Fuckup-spottin' Penguin
If you can't change your mind are you sure you still have one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that if you help people they will appreciate you. But it seems to me like we are not in Iraq to help people, but rather to control them and make some company's a ton of money doing so.
They don't need American company's and American workers there, they need their own company's and workers rebuilding that country.
That is the only way they can get a sense of being united.