appeasers, cowards, moral idiots

[Dennis Perrin]

Dennis Robert Redmond:
>
> It's not this simple. There was sufficient cause, considering all the
> evidence, for the UN to intervene in a situation where a multinational
> terrorist gang had hijacked an entire country (a dismal first in the
> annals of world history -- previous monsters, like the Khmer Rouge, were
> strictly national terrorists). This didn't happen, mostly because the US
> is run by an asinine oiligarchy with a current account deficit for a
> brain, so we had this fucked-up situation of hunting a bunch of Al Capones
> with B-52s, when a battalion of Swiss reservists with stapleguns could've
> gotten the job done. On some level, the Regency must know how weak its
> geopolitical position is, which is why it has to bluster and threaten
> everyone in sight.

Well, first of all, the KR were not strictly "national terrorists" since
they crossed the Vietnamese border and killed hundreds of Vietnamese in
their mad ethno-quest for Greater Kampuchea. And the Vietnamese quite
rightly responded with full force and drove Pol Pot's gang into the Thai
jungle. That was a legitimate use of self-defense, despite what the West and
its Chinese friends saw as "Prussianism."

As for the Bush gang, yes, they are fucked up in so many ways. But I don't
recall anyone saying that the government should protect its citizens from
foreign attack *except* in the case of an "asinine oligarchy." And don't
underestimate al-Qaeda; they are not a bunch of "Al Capones" but a very
serious, violent threat to what they see as an infidel existence. They are
not neighborhood gangsters looking for black market share, but are
international theocratic fanatics who wish to impose a Wahabbi state on
believers and non-believers alike. Look at what they did to Afghanistan, and
tell me how 1920s Chicago compares to that.

DP