It's Saturday. A day off. A day of rest and relaxation. So there I am, doing the potato couch routine while my wife works away at the computer. She gets an average of 1,200 e-mails a day so I figure while she's on here I can get some peace and quiet. (Married men know what I'm talking about, lol)
Anyway, I was watching a Chuck Norris film called 'Delta Force'. I'm not a big Chuck fan but my wife likes him and there was nothing else on.
This film was made in 1986, long before 9/11. At first it struck me that if they can be this accurate about Arabs hijacking planes so long ago, what didn't Clinton see to 'bomb them back to the Stone Age'? I know it doesn't all fall on Clinton's shoulders. There were presidents before him who led up to today's War On Terror. However, it seems to me that he was the first who could have nipped this whole thing in the bud. Now people are trashing Bush for trying to clean up the mess Clinton left. I suppose that throwing money at a problem only goes so far.
What made me sit up and take notice is the fact that Chuck seems to have an attitude. From his early days through to "Walker, Texas Ranger", he always had an attitude. The guy was ready to bazooka your butt without a second thought. And so it should be.
Chuck always faced the bad guys with the same stuff they were throwing at him. If they shot at him, he fired back. If they pulled out missiles or rockets, he shot back. If they came at him with knives, he fought back, but usually unarmed. It's Hollywood, I know, and it made Chuck a great deal of money, but the underlying current is that he never started anything. All he did was fight back. And he gave as good as he got. In the last minutes of a fight, he laid a can of 'Whup Ass' on his foe and there was no question as to who won the fight.
Critics will accuse Bush of watching too many of these types of movies, whether they were Chuckie's, Arnold's, Sly's or Steven Segal's. Maybe. But on 9/11, the world was all for handing out some 'Whup Ass' of their own. The world suddenly got an attitude. And rightly so.
The Americans hadn't done anything to anybody and in an instant 3,000 people were dead on their soil. Because of terrorists. Because of the demented rantings of Osama. Because some fanatical Muslims believe the Koran teaches them to annihilate the 'infidel'. The superbly planned attack to take down the symbolic bastions of the free west cannot, and weren't, taken lightly. The USA is the last superpower in the world, and the world looked to them to see how they would handle the problem. Civilized nations all over the globe stood side by side with the States and said in unison, "Let's go kick some ass." Mr. Bush went after Osama with a vengeance. He failed, so far, in that mission. But by declaring a 'War on Terrorism', Bush knew he had other, not necessarily bigger, fish to fry.
Anyone ever involved in a debate knows how tangents creep into the argument and soon you're not even talking about the original issue. So it is with this 'war'. Canada has troops currently fighting in Afghanistan, trying to get rid of the Taliban, rebuild the country and bring freedom to its people. Quite a heavy load for a country whose military has been decimated by its own government. But we are their, along with some NATO allies, doing the best we can. Detractors are calling for the return of our troops forthwith. Even those who sent them there in the first place are saying now that they have no business being there. It was spelled out from the start that this would be a peacemaking rather than peacekeeping mission, and the critics of today say why are they engaged in war? Maybe they didn't get the memo.
Regardless, America turned its attention to Iraq. Democrats as well as Republicans voted to go after Saddam based on the information they had at the time. Remember the little item about WMD? Her European allies agreed and everyone went in, hell bent for leather, to nip this thing in the bud. (Chuckie lives!) Turns out nobody could find any WMD but after Saddam successfully held off UN inspectors long enough to hide them, what other conclusion could anyone come to? (Oops, Chuckie takes a hit) More important is the fact that Saddam was offering US$25,000 to the families of suicide-murderers. If this isn't supporting terrorism, I don't know what is. And yet, we've all lost sight of that little factoid. The peace mongers say this whole war is about oil. The States have said all along that they don't want to control Iraq's oil. Even if they bumped gas prices up to $5.00/ gal. they'd never recoup the money already spent to wage this fight. So forget the oil argument.
Unlike Viet Nam, this is a declared war against Iraq. There is no draft anymore, the States are supplying a volunteer army, so forget the deserters arguments that it's not right to fight. Signed up? Then go when you're told. But unlike Viet Nam, the US now has an exit strategy. In Viet Nam, it was 'cut and run'.
Mr. Bush, who may not be the coldest beer in the fridge, has finally put together a committee of Dems and Reps who have come up with a workable plan. It is in essence a cut and run plan, and that will please all the Dems and cowardly army deserters, but it allows the US to save some face in retreat. Mr. Bush's staunchest supporter, Tony Blair, has declared his plan to withdraw all UK troops by the end of the year. (Ouch, Chuckie takes a big hit) But it's only the middle of the movie folks. Don't go home yet.
It's intermission time so go pee and get another box of popcorn. We'll be back to the main feature in a moment. What happens in the '08 election will be thrilling. Will we see another leader like Churchill or Thatcher take the reins of American power? Will we see another Chamberlain or Annan take the reins? Bush is committed and understandably under a lot of pressure. Hopefully, he takes some of the recommendations of the committee under advisement, but also hopefully, he takes his sworn oath seriously. And that is to protect and defend the people of the United States. (I don't make this stuff up, folks. Look up any swearing in of a new president and you'll be reminded)
Maybe it is time to leave Iraq and concentrate on things like North Korea. NATO, if it had any gonads, can look after the wipe up operations in Iraq. Talking with Syria and Iran about the problem is useless. If NATO met up to its commitments, Iraq would be stable in a hurry. (Chuckie calls in his back-up while he goes after another criminal) At least Chuck had some back up he could count on. Our liberally dominated world will support you up to a point and then when they can't gain votes, leave you to hang and dry by yourself.
Kim Jong Il has loosed a nuclear weapon and made no bones about it. In fact, he's proud of it. And again we hear word of sanctions against him. Pretty scary stuff. But China and Russia don't seem to want to piss this little twerp off too much. They will rely on the good old US of A to get them out of a difficult situation when Kim makes more and more powerful weapons. (Chuckie will stand alone again)
The world's policeman cannot do everything alone. It needs backup. That's why organizations like NATO, SEATO and the UN exist. All they need is the cajones when it counts. 9/11 gave us all an attitude. What happened to it? I used to subscribe to the theory of not kicking a man when he's down. My opinion has changed, especially in the war on terror.
Like a bonfire, you have to be aware of any burning embers that it produces and put them out before they can do real damage, so it is with terrorism. Light the fire (Afghanistan), look out for embers (Iraq), then before it is too late, get the last one that will cause the forest to burn (North Korea).
Terrorists are living among us and those who refuse to believe it will be surprised when we all have to learn Arabic. They are the peace mongers and cowards, the Liberals and Democrats. Over and over again they have proven that their soft approach to hard problems doesn't work and somehow they stay the course, saying that pacifism works. It does not. Sometimes you just have to make war to ensure peace.
Long live Chuck and his attitude. Let's not lose ours.
Published by Youranter
I'm just a working stiff with opinions who would like to share them. View profile
-
Why the "War on Terror" is Wrong
Intended as a rebuttal to Greg Reesons article, What the Democrats Don't Understand about the War on Terror. I contend that the "war on terror" is wrong. It is wrong because the...
-
The War on Terror: Protesting the Liberation of Iraq
Popular view on Cindy Sheehan and her "cause". The building of dreams for the Iraqi people. The war on terror and what it stands for.
-
Murder Rates and Violent Crimes in America Vs. The War on Terror and Ter...
...look at the staggering contrast between what we do to ourselves and what the terrorist have done and think about which one poses more of a risk to the American people.
- Is America Losing the War on Terror? Bush and Co. claim the war on terror is being won and that leaving Iraq would bring terrorists to your back door. Apparently, they are the only people in Washington who believe these things.
- Fighting the War on Terror The creation of a new combatant command for Africa is a recognition that the war on terror extends beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Anger Expressed Through Chuck Palahniuk's "Fight Club"
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights
- War on Terror
- President Bush and "The War on Terror"
- How the Cold War May Have Given Birth to the War on Terror
- Why We Must Win the War on Terror
- War on Terror Vs. War in Iraq
- The science behind Adele's 'perfect tear-jerker' (The Week)
- Google's 'mysterious' experiment in home entertainment systems (The Week)
- Good day, bad day: February 13, 2012 (The Week)
- Did the Grammys fail to properly honor Whitney Houston? (The Week)
- Will Obama's contraception compromise help his campaign? (The Week)
33 Comments
Post a Commentlol at making excuses for an off day and launching an attack rather than simply admitting that it was in error. In any case...I made my point, and I am done with it. See ya around the funny farm. BTW... not a computer geek at all. I am the CEO of the technology company I run... and I don't know the first thing about programming. I make up solutions for probelms that need solving and then task my team with solving them. It's quite lucrative really... gives me lots of time to write... and to piss around on sites like AC and the like. Cheers!
So does mine, but don't tell her I said that!
She'll kill me for saying this Don, but she snores louder than I do, LMAO.
Yawn. Sweet dreams, Youranter. Don't wake your wife by snoring too loud!
LOL Don. Harry's an unemployed computer geek who calls himself a 'catalyst'. Last time I looked, that term referred to chemical reactions. But watch out, you've been WARNED, he doesn't suffer fools lightly. Gee, how ever will I get to sleep tonight?
I'm curious, Harry. Don't you have something better to do than carping about Chuck Norris and one article. You must be really bored.
Harry, anyone can have an off day. My apologies for not being as wise and wonderful as you. As I said, I wrote the article and moved on. Why don't you get over your pettiness and do the same?
lol@considering yourself intelligent. I had to remind you of things you said in your own article. I rest my case. I said I don't suffer fools lightly as a warning. Act like a fool, and be prepared for me to scoff at you...as I have clearly done here.
Thanks Don. Why is it only intelligent people can understand what I write about? I suppose some people have nothing else to do but fixate on some pretty petty things and then try to come across as they're actually debating. Fachidiots, lol.
I like Chuck Norris and I like Youranter. If you're all too dumb to understand what he meant, you deserve each other