Enough Already

"What do I think of France now? Here's what I say to France: 'Gas up the dinghy, Fredo... 'cause you're dead to me.'" -- Dennis Miller on CNN's "Larry King Live"

I'm sitting here watching the new Donahue news/talk show on MSNBC. He has 5 panelists -- Neal Boortz (conservative talk radio host), Jesse Jackson (you know who he is, and he's ultra-liberal), and three more panelists -- a fairly mousy lady who was a speaker at the anti-war rallies, an ultra-conservative guy that keeps shouting stuff about the anti-war people being "Commies", and a greasy looking dude is a suit that was yammering on about conspiracy stuff with a big anti-liberal slant. And in case you didn't know, Phil Donahue is the quintessential tree-huggin' "bed-wetter liberal" (as Neal Boortz calls them). As usual, nobody can finish a sentence and everybody is flinging their respective causes' buzz words and catch phrases at each other. Somewhat entertaining, lightly compelling, pretty annoying, and completely useless if you're looking for any insight into what's going on.

Somebody asked me tonight at Ginny's what I thought of the war. Since I have too many thoughts about it to get started on it all while siting at Ginny's swillin' beers, I just murmured something like "I think we oughta go."

I know most of you likely don't give a flyin' rat's ass about what I have to say about the whole war thing (and rightly so, I might add), but I'm awake, it's driving me nuts, and I donŐt have a day job. So here ya go.

Just to polarize myself right off the bat, I am not a member of the anti-war camp. I certainly understand their arguments against war -- we need to focus our funds and energies elsewhere, it will make the world hate us more, innocent lives (both Iraqi and probably American if/when there's another terrorist attck because of it) will be lost.

THE GAME TILL NOW

At the end of the first Gulf War (or GW1, if you want) in 1991, the Iraqi government signed an agreement with the United Nations agreeing to own only certain kinds of weapons, destroy other kinds of weapons that they had, and allow U.N. inspections to confirm that these things have been done. They were put on these restrictions by the U.N. because they had invaded their neighbor Kuwait, and had committed other unprovoked attacks and severe human rights violations. The U.N., in effect, had assumed a "parental" role over the Iraqi government -- "You can play, but not with the really sharp sticks, since you like to poke people's eyes out and all." Ever since then Iraq has, over and over again, gone back on the treaty they signed and not allowed the inspectors in to make sure they did not have stuff they weren't supposed to have -- the "really sharp sticks", America's favorite catch phrase, weapons of mass destruction. In fact, several Iraqi scientists have who have defected to the U.S. or elsewhere, have stated that they were employed in Iraq to develop such weapons, and that Iraq is moving as fast as possible to get the most destructive weapons possible, and have an extensive underground bunker system with functioning development facilities and personal living spaces. These scientists have no reason to lie, in fact have every reason not to talk, because their families may be tortured and killed back in Iraq if Saddam Hussein's government finds out that they talked to the U.S.

No matter what side of this war you're on, it's a basically undisputed fact that for 12 years Saddam has been defying the U.N. on inspectors, in the process breaking their signed treaties from 1991.

What is in dispute right now is whether or not he really has been developing those "really sharp sticks". True, head inspector Hans Blix (do they pick these guys just for their bitchin' names?) reported this weekend that they had found no evidence that they have any of said sticks. They did find some bombs are more powerful than what Iraq is allowed to have (by signed treaty, I must add again), and they are also not allowing inspectors total access to wherever they want to go and whenever they want to go there. They have also said that Iraq has been making "some concessions", allowing inspectors a bit more access, and allowing U.S. spy planes to fly over Iraqi air space. Some progress. With his back to the wall, Saddam has decided to play our game for now.

SO WHY WAR RIGHT NOW?

Our biggest opponent of the war, France's President Jacques Chirac (another bitchin' name -- who picks these guys, Dr. Suess?), thinks this is enough to stop military action. Now that Iraq has made some concessions in our direction, why do we need to go to war? They're playing by the rules now, right? True enough, they are -- to a point. See, that's the thing -- you have to play by ALL the rules, not just SOME of the rules. You can't say, "OK, I won't murder anybody, but I'll still go on robbing banks." In a football game, a coach can't say "OK, we'll accept that a touchdown is 6 points. But for our team, field goals are worth 4 points, we get 5 downs on every possession, and the other team isn't allowed to intercept our passes." The fact is, Iraq has been in "material breach" of it's contracts with U.N. since 1991, and, even by Hans Bix's own reports, is still violating them.

So what do you do? We've already "economically sanctioned" the Iraqi people into poverty and destitution -- which, by the way, could have been avoided by Saddam Hussein allowing inspectors to prove he doesn't have any big bad weapons and no "Really Sharp Sticks R Us" factories. Another undisputed FACT: Saddam Hussein is a big-time thug, a ganster in the traditional sense, but on a grander scale. He is fiercely protective of nothing but his own life and power, keeps his power over his people through poverty and violence. His regime routinely, instantly and without trial or question executes anyone who may pose a threat to him. Virtually every Iraqi citizen has a friend or relative that has been tortured or executed by Saddam's government. When he has been attacked in the past, he hides in groups of his own citizens, using them as "human shields" to save himself. If we go to war, it's likely that he will kill a large group of his own citizens, as well as the American "human shields" that have gone to Iraq in protest of the war. He will do this and say "See what you caused by attacking us?"

OK, fine, we all know he's a rotten bastard, and a threat to those around him. More basically undisputed facts. He has violated every agreement he has signed since 1991. Another FACT. If action is to be taken, the only option left is force. The FACT everybody hates.

Why right now? Because in the summer months, Iraq is a MUCH harder environment to fight a war, causing much higher danger to our troops and much higher possibility of casualties. And while we're waiting months and months for the "inspections to work, diplomatic measures to be taken, and more agreements signed and broken, Iraq can develop more and more strength to fight us with if we do decide to go to war. "Little Saddam, you've been bad... you're going to get a whoopin' in a little while, so be sure and put a brick over your ass."

Why right now? What's different now than in the last 12 years? What's the hurry? Here's the answer: September 11, 2001. We realize now that we can't just sit and wait for people that hate us and want us destroyed to attack us. Because now we know for a fact that they will. One of the arguments for not going to war with Iraq is that it will cause greater hatred around the world for America, especially in the Arab world, where terrorist groups have their strongest foothold and recruitment possibilities. This will cause an even greater chance for terrorist attack in our country and around the world. I see that point, but the fact is that pretty much everybody that would hate us enough perform a terrorist act against America ALREADY HATES US!! We have already thwarted several terrorist plots, and will keep doing so. And some very possibly will not be thwarted, and innocent Americans will die. Whether we go to war with Iraq or not will have no affect on that. They're going to keep trying to kill us no matter what.

But what does Saddam have to do with it? A li'l anecdote: Before the Korean war started, communist North Korea wanted to invade democratic South Korea, but didn't have the money or weapons. So they went to the biggest hater of democracy in the world, the Soviet Union, and asked for their permission and aid. The Soviets gave them tanks, guns, training, all the military might they needed, and they invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War. NOW, besides Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is the most powerful man in the world that has violent hatred toward the U.S. If he so desires (and why would you think he wouldn't?), he could give massive funding and weapons to any terrorist group he wants. There are many terrorist groups that live and thrive in Iraq, and funding them would be effortless. With one phone call, Al Queda could have virtually any weapon it desires, chemical, biological, or otherwise. OK, there's no "smoking gun" evidence that this has happened. But that doesn't in any way mean that it hasn't happened! And do you really think that terrorist groups haven't asked for Saddam's help, knowing has more hatred for the U.S. than anybody else? And do you really think he would say "No"? FACT: The more time goes by, the more their hatred for us grows (whether we are contemplating war or not), and the stronger the people that want to kill us get.

So the real question is "why NOT right now?"

In fact, that's what Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Bush, and all their cronies have been saying all along. The deal Iraq signed was that THEY have to prove that they DON'T have weapons of mass destruction, not that we have to prove that they DO. Why do we have to make a big case for going to war? THEY need to make a case for us NOT to! And Iraq has given us very little reason not to. There are some reasons, just very few. And not near enough.

GAS UP THE DINGHY

France has appointed itself the "contrary one" of the U.N. And that's good, actually. Another basically undisputed fact is that the U.S. government has a tendency to be pigheaded and self-important, declaring ourselves the answer to all world's problems. Of course, it doesn't help that every time something happens, the world looks at us and says "What are you gonna do? Do something!" That's what happens when you're the most powerful nation on the planet -- when you're only a 220-something year old country, you get too big for your britches. And yes, sometimes we are. So we need somebody to keep us in check, and France has declared themselves "that somebody". They oppose us often, seemingly just for the spirit of it. But, unfortunately, they (the country that offers literally NO military manpower for any U.N. action) have a permanent seat on the U.N. council that decides these things, and have veto power to stop any action they want. Germany (Chancellor Schroeder) and Russia (President Putin), who also oppose us on this war, also have permanent seats. We actually have a huge majority of the U.N., including all of Saddam's neighbors in the Middle East, who support taking immediate action against Iraq. It just so happens that the 3 countries who oppose us are really important ones.

**SIDE NOTE: OK, what the hell... We've got people in this named "colon", "sodom", "pootin'", "jock she-rock", and, of course, "bush". I've changed my mind, I don't think it was Dr. Suess who picked these guys -- it was a bunch of 12-year-old boys.**

I think what it boils down to is that Chirac just doesn't dig ol' Gee-dubyah. To him, Bush is the sterotypical "ugly American" -- cocky, tough-talkin', no bullshit, I'm in charge here, you're with us or ag'in us. He doesn't get that Europeans, especially the French, can't stand that about Americans. The only real power France has at all is dissention with words. They have no military power, and don't strive for any. So they'll be damned if they'll let some "ugly American" take away the only power they have in the world, which is the power to slow American aggression. Chirac is blinded by Bush's rhetoric, and is ignoring the facts. He is using a personal grudge and political obstinance just to prove a point. Maybe it would help if Bush didn't spout off with stuff like basically calling the U.N. wussies, telling them to "have a backbone". But then maybe they should just have one.

It took them 2 weeks, a zillion meetings, high-pressure diplomatic wrangling, and a thousand hours of CNN-watching for me for them to say this:

U.S: Come on y'all, let's get 'em!

FRANCE: Wait. Why?

U.S. They're screwing us. And about to screw us worse.

FRANCE: Prove it.

U.S. We already did! Now let's go!

FRANCE: No. Don't want to.

U.S. The problem is you think we give a shit what you think. Now c'mon, everybody else! Let's go!

FRANCE: Au contraire, mon frere. You have to give a shit what we think. That's the rules. U.N. said so.

SADDAM: Nyah, nyah!

U.S. Jesus, have some balls. We gotta go. NOW.

FRANCE: No.

GERMANY: Yeah, what he said!

RUSSIA: Ditto!

SADDAM: Nyah, nyah, yer mama... [thumbs nose]

U.S. Aw, hell... screw y'all, we're going anyway. we've got more friends than you.

FRANCE: Try it, American pig-dog. I fart in your general direction.

SADDAM: [gut laughs]

So that's where we stand now. France, Germany, and Russia hollering "Let the inspections work!!", and us hollering "They already did!" In the meantime, since we haven't had a big war for a long time, the anti-war folks are out in full force, doing marches and protests all over the world. However, most of these folks are against war under any circumstances. The fact that it's this war is basically irrelevant to them. The woman on the Donahue show I was watching actually said "Why would we want to attack a country that hasn't attacked us yet?" Put it this way: You're sitting in your house. You look out the window and there is a guy pointing a shotgun at a member of your family, the barrel pressed to the window, his finger on the trigger. You just so happen to have a gun in your end table drawer by your chair. Do you pick up your gun and fire, or do you run and call the cops? By the time you get to the phone, he will probably kill them. If you just holler at your family member and duck, he will probably shoot anyway, or break into the house to do it. But he hasn't done anything yet! I can't shoot him, right? That would be wrong and unjust! Maybe the gun isn't loaded! Or maybe it's a water gun or somethin'!

Saddam Hussein, through his hatred for us, and his ability and likely desire to help those who want to kill us, has a gun pointed in our window, directly at our family. I'd say a "pre-emptive strike" is justified on this one.

"Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING!" -- pro-war picket sign at an anti-war rally, February 2003.