From here:
"It is a different kind of war, where you cannot see your enemy and where there is no front line, but nonetheless this is an entirely real threat," Ivanov told reporters. "Russia is not the only country that faces this new threat."New?! NEW threat?! To quote a friend of ours: "ARE YOU MAD?!"
Clearly, we didn't do a very good job of convincing the world to join us in our fight against terror. Clearly, we weren't able to convince other nations that the threat was real. Clearly, there was a breakdown in communications. "You're either with us or with the terrorists!" is not very convincing, Mr. Bush. It takes a little more savvy than that. In fact, about our own "methods" of fighting terror, we didn't even do anything but aim a fart in Afghanistan while we threw shitbombs all over Iraq. Oh and we tossed a bunch of people in Guantanamo and didn't allow them to go into the legal process. Ever hear of plea bargaining, or getting the big guys by talking to the small guys? Seen Law and Order? Makes no sense. Thank God for the Supreme Court. The guy in the dialysis machine is still at large. Terrorists are becoming bolder. Meanwhile, the world is become increasingly tired of us, and are slowly turning against us. That whole lapse of judgment in Abu Ghraib didn't help either. Meanwhile, the dollar is falling against the Euro. Anti-US propaganda is all over China.
The people
I hate to say it, but we are becoming less relevant. If we keep up this hubristic bullshit, we will cede our superpower status to someone like... oh... China. And as I said before, China sucks. As much as the state of the union is a little less nice as it was before, China sucks more. A lot more. We don't want them calling the shots. Hell no.
A friend told me that the world depends on us, that we're "untouchable." I wonder if he will say the same thing now. Oh, and if Europe and Japan end up getting international patents for new fuels (I bet they are already working on it), we'll be dependent on them. We used to be "innovative." That was our trademark. Now the countries we modeled after us after World War II are surpassing us at our own game.
I'm going on a tangent... let's get back to my original topic.
Who is a better choice to unite the world against this very real and dangerous threat? This is an enemy without borders, one which requires global cooperation to conquer. One which needs global cooperation and trust.
Hint: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
Kerry.
Not the best choice, but still better than Bush.
2 comments:
One word, gal - tungsten.
Back during the cold war, the US needed tungsten for the SR-71. We don't have a lot of it here; it's not that common a metal.
But the USSR did.
So we bought their tungsten. We didn't tell them what we were going to use it for, of course, but I'm sure they suspected; it is a "strategic metal."
The fall of the American Empire will not be something so simple as a comparative advantage in production; if that were so, everyone would have been right about the Pacific Century. If our geopolitical hubris destroys us, it will destroy everyone; the bombs or the collapse will suck us all down.
If there is a slow decline, it will be like Rome of Augustus; the empire will last for centuries on, grinding down its advantages until the end. And to that, Kerry would be a drop in the bucket.
- Ben
all i'm sayin' is we need a major PR overhaul. and a change of the face of the person in the oval office can only help. from what i'm reading, both bush and kerry are tough on this particular subject: terrorism. but bush's poor execution of the war on terrorism and also... the war in iraq ("miscalculation" - to quote him) is embarrassing. motto: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. but if it's broke, fix it!
that whole aside into "innovation" was just... an aside.
Post a Comment