Jim Bob's Foreign Policy: Shoot first, ....... dern.

Saturday, July 16, 2005 at 07:09 PM

Got this from the AP .

It seems the insurgents in Iraq are burning money, now. More after the cut.

An insurgent suicide bomber detonated explosives strapped to his body Saturday, triggering a huge explosion at a gas station near a mosque south of Baghdad and killing at least 54 people. The attack capped a string of three major bombings over the past four days that killed at least 120.

This is another horrific tragedy, a brutal and unnecessary loss of life that, frankly, shouldn't happen anywhere, but is happening all over Iraq.

And of course us liberals want to play the blame game, and say GWB is entirely responsible for every single life lost in Iraq, with this bombing or any other that takes place.

Personally, I hate the son of a bitch, but I figure he's built up enough karma to get his in spades on his own. Why should I bring myself down to the Republican level of thought, where everything is so simple, so black and white, that I villify anything done by the party I disagree with, and make everything done by my party grand?

Bah, now I've gone down a rathole. Back to the story at hand: Iraqis are killing Americans, and Americans are killing Iraqis, and Iraqis are killing other Iraqis. If war is hell, then this is hell on earth, right?

So I'm reading this piece by the AP, and I come across this graf:
Witnesses and police said the fuel tanker was moving slowly toward the pumps when an attacker ran to it and detonated his charge.
Inncuous enough, the guy ran right up to the tanker full of flammable liquid and detonated a bomb. Pragmatic and final, but it got the job done he wanted to accomplish. It amazed me that he was able to get to the tanker to detonate the bomb.

Then, several paragraphs later, this:
Earlier Saturday, the U.S. military announced it had filed charges against 11 soldiers for allegedly assaulting Iraqis detained during combat operations in the capital.
Seemingly unrelated, right? Sort of like "hey, what is this doing in the same article?" kind of thing. And then it dawns on me: Our soliders, arrested and charged for assaulting people when they captured them, constantly maligned for hurting innocents and civilians because they can't tell the difference, and a possible reluctance to challenge people running up to a fuel truck?

Or just not guarding the damned thing in general, which seems to be the case here. Either way, if this doesn't sound like a history lesson on Vietnam, you're not fucking listening.

When a significant portion of a civilian population turns on your army, the war is over. You can piss on the hornet's nest all you like, but that's not going to make the hornets play nice.

Like it or don't, but we are feeding terrorism. We are pouring miracle-grow on the weed of terrorism daily, as if we wanted it to thrive. Hell, maybe we do, I don't fucking know. What I do know is that I don't want it to continue, or to thrive. I want terrorism, *ALL* terrorism, dead. Not an ongoing battle against it, I want it dead.

And that means getting the fuck out of the middle east and staying the fuck out of the middle east. It means a foreign policy in which we do not play policeman to the world. It means becoming self-sufficient as a country and a people.

We can't survive without the economy's of dictators that prop us up. We may be the biggest on the block, but we could not be without the support of the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Chinese, and all the other "evil" regimes that keep us alive economically.

When will terrorism end? Never. Because we are not capable as a society of ending it with bullets and guns, rockets and tanks.

Sadly, that is the only thing we will try.