You don't get to be the captain of a United States nuclear-powered and weaponed aircraft carrier without being a remarkable man. Only the best of the Navy's best get handed that gig. So, it doesn't surprise me that, among their other abilities, they can give a pretty good speech.

This was given by the skipper of the John F. Kennedy, Capt Ron Howard, on the eve of their first combat air missions into Afghanistan back on March 10th. Good evening onboard John F. Kennedy and Carrier Air Wing Seven.

Trust in your faith, and in your shipmates. God bless us all, and God bless America.

... Link (0 comments) ... Comment

A multiple choice quiz for you...

These Iraqi soldiers are:

A: Showing their support for the suicide bombers of the intifada.

B: Testing the Iraqi Electro-Belly-Reducing Belt, the latest experimental weapon in the jihad against obesity.

C: Sporting Saddam's latest troop retaining, morale-boosting device, which explodes if the wearer moves more than a few hundred yards outside the Baghdad city limits.

On a related note, don't these guys look a lttle pudgy for a regime where folks are supposed to be starving due to our sanctions, or is it just that the Maximum Leader's henchmen never go hungry? :-)

... Link (0 comments) ... Comment

Jack from over at The People's Republic of Seabrook is an unashamed liberal, and wonders what pretext we have for invading Iraq, in a comment to my recent post about psyops in the coming GWII. I started to answer in the comment, but then decided it should be it's own entry, as it was getting a bit long.

He asks: I'd still like to know under what pretext Shrub would justify invading a country that has committed no overt act of hostility against the US?

Not liking a regime is hardly sufficient justification for an invasion, much less interfering in the internal affairs of that country.

Well, I've already expounded on this at length, both here, and in comment threads in other places. This post was written under the assumption that we are in fact going to war in Iraq. I think even the most fervent anti-war protester can see that we are.

Personally, I think it 's the right thing (as in morally right) to do. I say that without any religious feelings at all. It's one of the few times where our national interest, self-defense, and Doing Good all intersect.

You use of the word "pretext," rather than "cause," or "reason," I think pretty much defines your mindset towards this war. \Pre"text\ (?; 277), n. [F. pr['e]texte, L. praetextum, fr. praetextus, p. p. of praetexere to weave before, allege as an excuse; prae before + texere to weave. See Text.] Ostensible reason or motive assigned or assumed as a color or cover for the real reason or motive; pretense; disguise. Saddam has already given us plenty of reasons to take him down. I don't think any of them are "pretexts."

Perhaps I can quote the man himself: "Regardless of details, and of the nature of evolution between successive historical chapters, the human lesson derived is that the present of any nation or people cannot be isolated from its past; and that, according to this, nations and peoples have established their present, even though it might be distinguishable from their past in terms of advancement or retraction." That's Saddam, in a speech he gave on the 14th anniversary of the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

War criminal (he gassed the Kurds - and Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Convention) Eco-terrorist (the destruction of the Kuwaiti wellheads, and the intentional release of crude into the Persian Gulf) murderer (he has personally shot many of his opponents on the way up to power) military aggressor (war with Iran, invasion of Kuwait, lobbing Scuds at Israel) promoter of terrorism (cash rewards to families of suicide bombers, links with Al-Qaeda (Atta with Iraqi intel types)) I could go on. But if those don't move you to think that the world would be a better place without him, nothing I can say will.

Jack then asks: I find it difficult to believe that Shrub and his minions would violate international law in such a blatant manner (well, no, actually I CAN believe it...). "Who's next, Zimbabwe?"

Some folks think that so long as it's not their ox getting gored, their family getting gassed, their freedoms nonexistent, then the world is just fine. I suppose that's fine for some folks, if they can live with that. To me, it's like telling some malnourished, sick, dying little kid over there:

"Hey, I got mine - sucks for you. Sorry you were born in Zimbabwe, and I was born in Kansas. Good luck with your life - call us when you get rid of that Mugabe dude. I know you didn't vote for him, so now he's starving your village to death by not letting the international food shipments come through, but hey, it's not happening over here, my national interests aren't at risk, so it's none of my business. Besides, I doubt I could get a resolution making it legal past the UN, where every tin-pot despot gets a vote, and if we start messing around with the autonomy of one, the rest are gonna have a hissy-fit, because they don't like the precedent. It means that someday they'll be next. We're gonna have stability in this New World Order, even if it's the deathly silence of a charnel house.

So, I'm gonna sit over here with my new SUV, three meals a day, and the hockey season coming on the dish, and do my very best to be an international law-abiding, non-interventionist respecter of the rights of other governments to do whatever the hell they want to inside their own borders, because I am a thoroughly post-modern cultural relativist, all peoples and ways of life are equally valid, and we don't have either the moral or legal standing to interfere."

Fuck that. I know that there are intelligent, well-meaning, kindly people that believe this to be the right action, but I think you got to have a heart of stone to read of what goes on in the world, and think we, with the power to fix those things, should ignore it.

... Link (2 comments) ... Comment