“To the Oklahoma Lawmakers,” A Poem

Trigger Warning. Tread Lightly

I just had to share this, in light of what we have been discussing. This is why I am pro-choice. Powerful stuff.


45 responses to ““To the Oklahoma Lawmakers,” A Poem

  • Terrance H.

    Yes. We wouldn’t want women seeing what it is their killing, now would we….

    The rest is nothing more than touchy-feely, liberal flimflam.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      Yes, I suppose rape is touchy-feely. But not the good kind. 😦

      • Terrance H.

        This isn’t just about rape, Spinny. You and I both know the pro-choicers do not want the ultrasound requirement for even selective abortions.

        And we can deal with pregnancy resulting from rape, which occurs less than 1% of the time, without keeping all abortions legal. Why so many pro-lifers allow the entire debate to be hijacked by emotional screens and rants is beyond me.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Nope. I don’t want the forced ultrasounds. It’s a medical procedure. You should be able to refuse it if you don’t want it.

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    Terrance: It’s so very difficult not to be horrified at your views on this. The rigidity and tenor of your stand on this particular issue is alarming. Have you ever been able to step into the shoes of any one and see just a tiny fragment of what it might be like from their perspective? Don’t focus on the message delivery in the video – try to focus on the other issues – from the standpoint of the woman who has been raped. If you can. Some men can.

  • Terrance H.

    Snooze,

    Let me try to be as nice as I possibly can about this.

    You believe the murder of unborn children should be a legal choice, and yet somehow I horrify YOU —- with MY views?

    Wow. Just —- WOW.

    And you have no idea what I think about raped women or the choices they have to make, so don’t presume to know.

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    “And we can deal with pregnancy resulting from rape, which occurs less than 1% of the time, without keeping all abortions legal.”

    So, Terrance, you believe that in some instances, you’ll allow abortion to be legal? Wow. Just…WOW.

    Your words: “Either one supports abortion rights, or doesn’t. The whole “Well, I don’t support abortion for any reason, but I think if a women is young and can’t afford…” blah blah blah blah. That person supports abortion rights, period.”

    So, what I see here is that you’re permitting there to be some gray area. Or, I’m confused. How do you permit, logistically, for some abortions to be legal and some not?

  • Terrance H.

    Did I say that, Snooze, or did you imagine I said that because it would display, quite nicely, a hypocrisy on my part? I think the latter.

    I have said numerous times that I have no problem with RU-486 in small doses being sold over-the-counter at an affordable price. Otherwise known as the “morning-after pill.” Conception doesn’t always, if ever, happen instantly, so Ru-486 is not, in my mind, the same as abortion.

    I believe a raped woman too embarrassed to receive medical attention could meander her way down to the drugstore and alleviate the worry of pregnancy. It would work nicely, too, for irresponsible women who failed to use a form of female birth-control which, when used properly, is 99.9% effective.

    There is no gray area. Abortion is wrong. Malum in se. It should be criminalize. Ru-486 and contraceptives, while an unfortunate reality for Catholics like myself, are common sense, necessary realities for the 21st Century.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but “meander her way down to the drugstore” sounded so flippant as Jean pointed out. In your scenario, that victim was violated. I don’t picture a lazy Sunday afternoon style drive to and skipping through the aisles of the local CVS. More than likely, she might be too traumatized to think straight, let alone remember to get that pill. 😦

      I didn’t know that RU-486 was an abortifacient until I read her post. If you believe that life begins at conception, are you OK with it? I mean it can be used up to 2 months of pregnancy.

      • Terrance H.

        RU-486 in small doses can only be used as a “morning-after pill,” at least to my knowledge. I only support RU-486 in small doses.

        And if she is too traumatized to think straight, then I don’t know what to tell you. Too bad, I guess. If she doesn’t file a police report or head to the hospital, how can we be certain she was actually raped, therefore requiring an abortion? How do we know she isn’t making it up?

        If we’re going to criminalize abortion, we need to get rid of the loopholes.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        “Too bad I guess?” and “making it up.” You really don’t see how cold that sounds?

      • Terrance H.

        No, Spinny, I don’t see how cold that sounds; I see how realistic it sounds.

        Let’s just imagine, for a moment, that abortion is ciminalized, except in cases of rape and incest. Can you imagine the miraculous increase in the number of rapes if we don’t say “too bad” to women who claim to have been raped, but failed to file a police report or tell anyone about it?

        If we’re not going to enforce the law and close loopholes, what the hell is the sense?

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Wow. I know I shouldn’t be surprised because of your hard-line stance. Even though this thread is about abortion, let’s take it out of the equation for a second. What are your views on women who are raped? Do you believe that those who don’t report are making it up? What do you think about date rape?

      • Terrance H.

        Spinny,

        My stance is not “hardline” by any stretch of the imagination, unless you’re willing to claim that opposition to murder is a hardline stance. I believe, wholeheartedly, that unborn children are human beings, the very same as you and me.

        If abortion is criminalized except in cases of rape, I suggest there will be a huge increase in the number of “rapes.” It’s just common sense that some women will exploit the loophole, so I suggest we get rid of the loophole entirely. No abortions, period, unless necessary to save the life of the mother. We will offer emergency contraceptives over-the-counter, but in small doses only.

        My stance on women who are raped is that it’s horrible. It’s obviously a terrible ordeal to have to go through. I don’t want to force them to have a child they never consented to having (by having consensual sex), which is why I support emergency contraceptives, unlike many pro-lifers and Catholics, like myself.

        I wish we lived in a perfect world where people didn’t have sex outside of marriage, and did so only when they were ready to be parents. I wished we lived in a world where no woman had to fear she may be raped. I really wished we lived in a perfect world, but we don’t. I’m not only a pro-life Catholic, I’m a realist.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        For both the movements, it is hardline. So many on your side allow for rape and incest.

        You believe in closing the rape “loophole.” Why would you allow abortion to save the life of the mother?

      • Terrance H.

        People on my side who would allow abortions in cases of rape and incest are just trying to satisfy the pro-choicers, otherwise they’ll hijack the entire debate with silly accusations and emotional rants.

        I’m not afraid to say what I think. If we don’t close the loophole, women will take advantage of it. So for women who really are raped, we offer emergency contraceptives. If they don’t take it, too bad. Sound harsh? Too bad.

        To answer your last question: Self-defense.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Would you elaborate on the self-defense part? I don’t get it. You already want to close the rape “loophole,” why not just go all the way? No exceptions.

      • Terrance H.

        Spinny,

        You know what self-defense means. If the child poses an immediate danger to the woman’s life, she has the right to defend herself.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        I know what it means. I just never thought of it that way. *shrug*

        Even though I’m learning a lot about the other side that I didn’t know back then, I am very glad all these scenarios are hypothetical.

      • Terrance H.

        For the present, Spinny-dear…Hypothetical for the present…..

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    When you make comments on other posts, Terrance, it’s a good idea to keep track of them. I copied your comments verbatim.

    And, Terrance, you’re in the vast minority of people who believe that RU-486 is a contraceptive, rather than an abortifacient. I’ll provide a couple of links for you here.
    http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1137b-1.html
    http://www.wf-f.org/strangemed.html

    RU-486 or Mifepristone is a synthetic steroid compound used as a pharmaceutical. It is a progesterone receptor antagonist used as an abortifacient in the first two months of pregnancy

    Doctors who use it also must be able, the FDA says, to provide “surgical intervention” in situations where there are incomplete abortions or severe bleeding, or to have in place arrangements for patients to obtain such services from other physicians who can perform these sorts of surgical procedures.

    Affording women more privacy than a surgical abortion, the pill marketed as Mifeprex now accounts for about one-quarter of U.S. abortions performed in the first nine weeks of pregnancy and about 15 percent of all U.S. abortions. In 2008, about 184,000 American women used the pill – up from 55,000 in 2001 even though the overall number of U.S. abortions wasn’t rising.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_ten_years_after_ru486_abortion_pill_approved_by_fda_new_controversies_still_loom.html#ixzz1DsAKXkjr

    But, to further comment on some other things you’ve said: “if a woman is too embarrassed [after being raped] to meander her way down to the drug store..” reveals an appalling lack of consideration and empathy for what a woman goes through when she’s raped. You apparently believe that the act of rape merely renders the victim irritated or mildly concerned, so much so, that she should be able to put aside this act of violence relatively quickly and casually meander her way to the store to take care of the problem in a way that YOU approve of.

    And for the rest of the women who carelessly avoided birth control and find themselves pregnant? They are, according to you, solely responsible for the act of getting pregnant and therefore should be more than happy to consider your form of approved abortion.

    And, you can call me Jean or JC. The sneer you’ve intended by the less-than-imaginative nickname you’ve given me hasn’t gone unnoticed.

  • Terrance H.

    Among pro-lifers, RU-486 has become a blanket term for drugs which are used as emergency contraceptives. Mifepirstone is just one drug. Other drugs, in small doses, are only good for the first few days. That’s what I support. Forgive me for not being a pharmacist, but I certain there are other RU-486 drugs out there which can only be used up to a few days after sex.

    Why does the term “meander” send you liberals off on a tangent? There is nothing wrong with the term, and it doesn’t show a lack of empathy. It’s a word. It does mean to “wander aimlessly,” like someone might do if they were emotionally uneasy….

    And any woman who engages, willfully, in sexual relations and has failed to protect herself, is solely responsible for the act of getting pregnant – yes.

    And what are you talking about? A sneer? I called you Snooze because that’s the beginning of your na…wait, my bad, it’s Snoring….Oops. Sorry, Jean.

  • Snoring Dog Studio

    Terrance: If you can tolerate more than two dissenters for your opinions on rape, I’d suggest you read Emily’s blog post on Logan’s rape. Read the comments, too. Read as much as you can tolerate about the topic of rape and then let your opinions be better informed.

    The link: http://emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/lara-logan-assault-reality-of-rape/

    • SpinnyLiberal

      Thank you for posting that Jean. I think that’s why the wording “forcible rape” in that bill – HR3 – enraged people. Rape is rape, and no is no.

    • Terrance H.

      Just what in the hell is my position on rape, as you see it? I’ve not commented on House Resolution 3’s particulars. Frankly, I don’t care one way or the other.

      But let’s be honest. You, Spinny, and Emily Hauser are feigning frustration, and you know it. The Senate will not pass it, and if they do, President Obama will veto it. So, let’s not pretend this is a dire threat to “women’s health,” because it isn’t. The pseudo-outrage is typical of a group who likes to play victim (i.e., feminists), and it’s nauseating at best.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Feigning frustration? Whether or not it will pass is not the point. The fact that there is wording like that in it is outrageous. The fact that it took a comedian pointing it out satirically for legislators to take notice and change it is outrageous. And not the pseudo kind.

        Boil ginger root and drink it as a tea. Really good for nausea and not as nasty tasting as Pepto Bismol. 😉

      • Terrance H.

        That’s nonsense, Spinny. Are you going to get upset and frustrated any time someone suggests a change in public policy you vehemently disagree with? If that is the case, I’d hate to be your psychologist.

        Save all that anger and frustration for when you really need it. It has no chance of passing, and you know it.

        The Feminazis are putting on one helluva show, and you’re buying into big time. You’re too smart for that crap – and you know that, too.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        No I don’t. I tend to roll my eyes, say “Seriously?” and then e-mail my Congressman, who is way Left anyway. Then I go on with my life. I know it will not pass. Trust me. My point is that passing or not passing wasn’t the point.

        A show? These issues are important to feminists, man. Everyone has their issues that they support. Mine happens to be non-interventionism and the wars. If you’re passionate it about it, you’re not “feigning” frustration.

  • Terrance H.

    You’re getting frustrated over absolutely nothing! This hateful campaign waged by feminists, directed toward Republicans, is preposterous. It’s a ruse. The resolution means nothing. Liberals are just playing games, as usual.

    Feminists? No such thing anymore. All we have now are Feminazi’s.

    And what do you mean by “the wars,” Miss Spinny? Please tell me the plural is a typo…Please tell me you’re not seriously suggesting the War in Afghanistan is an unjust war?

    Please. I’ve been surrounded by absurdity all day. I can’t handle anymore!

    • SpinnyLiberal

      Again, it wasn’t about the outcome. It was about the archaic attitudes toward rape because of the wording and of course about abortion. Frustrated isn’t the same as enraged. My life didn’t stop because of it. As I said before, I usually roll my eyes and e-mail my Congressman.

      Feminazi is pejorative and was coined by our favorite talk show host, Rush.

      I’ve made my case for the wars before, Terrance.

      Afghanistan was absolutely justified because of 9/11. Direct attack. Afghanistan was the hotbed of terror at the time and the place where we could’ve started looking for OBL. But we all but dumped that war for Iraq. Any shot we had at “winning” was blown when we shifted our attention. Time to pack it up and go home.

  • Terrance H.

    Archaic attitudes? So, what, you don’t like dissent, differing opinions? Archaic to you, common sense to others.

    I don’t care who coined the term; it’s true.

    The War in Iraq was a mistake. But we’ve effectively won both wars. The cost may have been too high, but the common liberal rant of “we’ve lost the war!” is absurd. It’s not grounded in fact. We drove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan, for the most part. And in Iraq, combat troops are leaving…

    So, please explain to me your rational for claiming we’ve “blown ” our chance of winning, considering we have won?

    I wonder how it makes our soldiers feel to hear people like you claiming they’ve lost. I don’t have to care – anymore – because I’m a civilian.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      So do you believe that forcible rape is the only kind of rape? That’s what I was referring to when I said “archaic attitudes.”

      You may believe that is true, but some of us know better. 🙂

      We’ve won? Seriously Terrance? The Taliban is still there. They just have a different name, “insurgents.” They intimidate and try to stop people from voting. And they’re getting money from the Pakistanis. The money we give to Pakistan to help “fight” (assist) the Taliban. There are cases of Afghani police killing soldiers they were trying to train to take over. We drove out al Qaeda all the way to Yemen. And yet we still don’t have OBL.

      I really hope you were not one of the ones who actually believed Bush’s “Mission Accomplished.” My rationale for us blowing our chances of winning is above. We didn’t win. We lost.

      And Iraq with the combat troops leaving? Nice, but not enough. There are still and will probably forever be contingent troops there.

      Hmm. I would guess that some would feel relieved (secretly) if it meant they can avoid a 6th tour of duty there. But it isn’t going to happen. Even though we lost, we’re setting up shop I guess. Like Iraq,

      I want all of them home. Yesterday. They can guard the borders.

  • Terrance H.

    Yes, I do believe that “forcible rape is the only kind of rape,” because I’m not quite sure what other kind of rape there is. If it’s not forcible, then it’s consensual. What the Feminazi’s want is for a woman to claim, “Oh, well, he pressured me into it” as if women were a bunch of dumb sheep.

    Only conservatives think women are intelligent people; liberals think women are stupid. They must, I believe, because of the way they treat them; the silly ass laws and regulations they push aimed at protecting them.

    Yes, we won. Seriously, Spinny. The Taliban is there in small numbers, but you’d expect a resurgence. That’s no big surprise. Opium is responsible for some of that resurgence, as it funds their ruthless campaigns. It’s going to take a little more time, but eventually, the Taliban we’ll be completely squashed. Note: The Taliban is no longer in control over there.

    And since when is OBL Al-Qaeda? You’re basically saying we have to capture OBL in order to claim we’ve won; how absurd.

    And I couldn’t care less what you think about the War in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some of us were actually there and seen things with our own eyes; other listen to Maddow and Olbermann. I’ll leave it at that.

    You’re spouting pure, unadulterated ignorance – and little else. This is perhaps the only time I’ve been seething with anger toward you.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. You haven’t been there. While some of us had bullets flying at our heads, you were sitting comfy in San Fran bashing America and her soldiers. How pathetic.

    • Terrance H.

      If you’re so certain we’ve lost, then perhaps you ought provide some evidence for this assertion. How about giving me the numbers of terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan this and last year compared with prior years? How about giving me the numbers of people taken part in elections? How about giving me the number of Iraqi and Afghani security forces who have arrested or otherwise spoiled a terrorist plot? How about something other than uninformed opinion?

    • SpinnyLiberal

      So if a woman says “no” and she goes along with because if she doesn’t, she fears she may be beat up, is that rape?

      Only conservatives think women are intelligent people? Unadulterated ignorance and little else, Terrance.

      It’s going to take a little time? How much time? Ten more years?

      I bash America’s foreign policy, not her soldiers. I have family fighting over there, too, Terrance. While it’s nothing compared to you being there yourself, please don’t think that I hate the military. It’s simply not true.

      Seething with anger is on you, Terrance. Perhaps you should work on that. It is not good for your insides. I’ve been civil toward you even though your POV is maddening to me. I am against these wars. I want my cousins back home. How is that bashing soldiers?

      Maybe you should take a breather Terrance. Hug a puppy, get some sunshine. I’m going to do the same. This is my issue, and I can get very sensitive about it.

      • Terrance H.

        If she goes along with it, she isn’t really saying “no,” now is she?

        I think it should be horrifying to you people to think that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t already protect you and your kind, Spinny. Why do you need additional protection?

        Sadaam is dead; democracy has won the day in Iraq. The Taliban has been removed from power; democracy has the won the day in Afghanistan. There is far less terrorism now than ever before. The U.S. Military is no longer conducting combat missions in Iraq, as the Iraqi Military and security forces have taken over. Al-Qaeda is on the run in Afghanistan. What else do you want, Spinny? What else is necessary in order for you liberals to admit that the United States has won BOTH wars?

        If you don’t hate the military, Spinny, then please don’t parrot Olbermann and Maddow and claim “we’ve lost the wars” because we haven’t. Look at how much has been accomplished!

        So, how is that “supporting your opinion with something other than ——- opinion” coming?

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Going along with it to keep from getting beat up or worse. She said no. No means no. Not “not really.”

        I don’t get what the 14th amendment has to do with anything.

        Sorry, Terrance. I will never concede that we won because it simply isn’t true.

        Afghanistan:
        We had the opportunity to win the Afghanistan war at the very beginning. Kill OBL, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar. Kill as many of their supporters – military and civilian as possible and get the hell out of there. Instead we are here, 10 years later. Too many Afghanis are dead, too many non-Afghani Muslims have joined the insurgency, too much cash is pouring into the hands of the the Taliban-led insurgency from the Middle East and other Islamic countries. Support for this war is pretty much gone. Too many of our troops are dead. We’re trying to get Pakistan to help do our work but all they’re doing with the money is squirreling it to the Taliban. Like the former losers, the British Empire and the Soviet Union, we’ll give it up and go home. I’d rather that be sooner rather than later.

        Iraq
        You know my stance – we should have never been there. The good thing is that we killed an evil SOB despot and his sons. We toppled the regime and found no WMDs. There was that “Mission Accomplished” sign behind Bush. Why didn’t we leave? Iraqis wanted us gone after we found no WMDs and got rid of Saddam. We had to make sure they had democracy or something almost like it, right? Help them get stable before we left? Nope. Line the pockets of Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel first. So what do they have now? Poverty, unemployment, basic services like water and electricity are spotty, sectarian violence, violence against Christians. But….they can vote. After 100K Iraqis were killed, 4000+ US troops killed, they have a shaky democracy, and they can vote. Won? Well, Halliburton, Blackwater and Bechtel did. So yay I guess.

        Just because I believe we lost does not mean I hate the military or the soldiers. Nothing could be further than the truth.

      • Terrance H.

        Going along with it to keep from getting beat up or worse. She said no. No means no. Not “not really.”

        The impression that liberals, and Left-wingers generally, live in a dreamworld is not without merit.
        How do you purport to unravel the truth in such a situation? Do we take the word of the woman and lock the man up, or what? “I didn’t want to, but I figured he might beat me, so I did what he wanted.”

        Preposterous.

        I don’t get what the 14th amendment has to do with anything.

        It has almost nothing to do with rape directly, but it’s a shot aimed at a group of people who generally feel extra protection for certain groups, including themselves, is required. The 14th Amendment protects everyone equally, so why do we need special laws for women and minorities?
        Sorry, Terrance. I will never concede that we won because it simply isn’t true.

        Now I know my very first sentence is true.
        We had the opportunity to win the Afghanistan war at the very beginning. Kill OBL, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar.
        The movement surpasses their paltry little existence, Spinny. There was Jihad long before they were born, and there will be Jihad and terrorism long after they are gone. No intelligent person would measure the success of the United States military in such a way.
        Instead we are here, 10 years later.
        Did we win World War I and II, in your mind? I guess not, seeing as though we still have a presence in Eastern Europe.
        Too many Afghanis are dead, too many non-Afghani Muslims have joined the insurgency, too much cash is pouring into the hands of the the Taliban-led insurgency from the Middle East and other Islamic countries.
        This would still be the case even if the three you mentioned were dead.
        Support for this war is pretty much gone.
        Among liberals who never really supported the war, or any war, to begin with.
        Too many of our troops are dead.

        And what would be a good number of dead Americans, in your mind?

        One is too many.
        Like the former losers, the British Empire and the Soviet Union, we’ll give it up and go home. I’d rather that be sooner rather than later.
        We established democracy; they didn’t. And I think Great Britain and France succeeded in at least someway. They screwed the Arabs out of an Arab Nation pretty well.
        You know my stance – we should have never been there.

        I agree. I’ve said this before. As for the realities in Iraq now, this is a reality almost all new democracies have to endure. Of course there is poverty, and of course infrastructure is going to be bad. What the hell do you expect after decades of living under a dictator who cared about himself only?

      • SpinnyLiberal

        The movement surpasses their paltry little existence, Spinny.
        Duh. Did you even read my sentence? “Kill as many of their supporters – military and civilian”

        Did we win World War I and II, in your mind? I guess not, seeing as though we still have a presence in Eastern Europe.
        Last time I checked, we’re not fighting those wars. We’re still in Afghanistan 10 years later at war.

        This would still be the case even if the three you mentioned were dead.
        If we weren’t there anymore, why would they need to beef up the Taliban-led insurgency? There wouldn’t be anyone to fight.

        Among liberals who never really supported the war, or any war, to begin with.
        Biggest steaming pile of bull crap I’ve read in a while. Support of this war is at a record low among Americans – of all political flavors. Even some of your fellow veterans don’t support it anymore. “Rethink Afghanistan” has a cool Facebook page.

        One is too many.
        Well, duh again. There would have been a lot less casualties if we had gone in killed the three and as many of their supporters as possible and gotten out. Made examples of them, as in “attack us again, and this will be your fate.”

        We established democracy; they didn’t.
        Hahaha. Election fraud, voter intimidation, Parliament vs. Karzai, Parliament vs. itself. Like a Canal street Gucci, what they have now isn’t even a good “fake” Democracy. Afghans don’t even want our style of Democracy and freedom anyway. There are so many negative associations with the word in Afghans’ minds.

        I read a really good, fitting description of where we’re headed in a blog title. Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die.

  • Terrance H.

    Spinny,

    Let us not dabble in pettiness. You phrased your response in a way in which it appeared as though the beating heart of three people – a mere three – was the reason for your contention that the U.S. has lost the war[s].

    It doesn’t matter whether they are dead or alive; that’s my contention.

    Last time I checked, we’re not fighting those wars. We’re still in Afghanistan 10 years later at war.

    Spinny, come on, would you? Those wars lasted a substantial amount of time, as have other American wars. And what’s more, we still have troops in those nations today who are not carrying out combat missions, just like the U.S. troops in Iraq – they’re not carrying out combat missions.

    Afghanistan is another matter. In part because it’s a different kind of war, and in part because the previous administration focused too much on Iraq. Afghanistan, in the neocon eyes, is only a tenth of important as Iraq. Asinine, yes. So, now that we have a president who is serious about Afghanistan, it’ll be over before you know it, and the U.S. will emerge victorious.

    If there is one thing President Obama has done right – it’s Afghanistan.

    If we weren’t there anymore, why would they need to beef up the Taliban-led insurgency? There wouldn’t be anyone to fight.

    Your argument should be, “No country can win a Middle Eastern war, because of the religion that carries the day.” Then, I would agree, if our goal is to stop terrorism and radicalism completely. But that’s not realistic.

    You’re not going to bring complete freedom to the Middle East because of the religion. 70% of the people in Egypt, for example, want Sharia law. That and freedom don’t exactly go hand in hand, because true freedom is the ability to say, “F*** Mohammed.” But if you said that, you’d be put to death under Muslim law.

    So, what’s a win, in your mind, if not simply bringing some form of democracy? Are you saying it’s impossible to win that kind of war? I don’t think so, because you said, “We could have won if we had….”

    Whoever said that about Afghanistan doesn’t really know what he or she is talking about. The U.S. empire has surpassed any that have existed.

    It’s going to take time for some form of fair democracy to arise in Afghanistan. But in my opinion, we shouldn’t be setting up democracies. We should have just bombed the hell out of them and left; that’s what I would have done. Why? Well, why not? Look what they did to us.

    We’ve won Iraq and we’re winning Afghanistan. But why even go through it? Iraq was a mistake and Afghanistan should have been a seek, destroy, and go home.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      Then I phrased it incorrectly and should have emphasized that they should have killed their supporters too.

      Of course, I would argue that what Obama did wrong was Afghanistan.

      Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, believes that Genghis Khan’s strategy would have worked for us. I agree. This would have been a win for me: “He killed all the Afghan fighters and their families he encountered, built mountains of their skulls to remind Afghans that Mongols are not to be trifled with and then got his army out of the country to India as quickly as possible.”

      What we have now is a 10 year attempt at establishing a democracy in a country that doesn’t want our kind. Epic fail.

      I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: