Addicted to Kool-Aid

[Michael]

I recently read a letter to the editor in which the writer complained that the newspaper unfairly displayed photos of Iraqi “terrorist prisoners” allegedly being abused by the military while relegating a story about Iraq’s persistent efforts to hide its WMD to the back pages.

The article that the writer refers to was released by ABC News. The letter writer doesn’t mention the fact that the article does not say that Iraq possessed WMD when we invaded that country in 2003. The article doesn’t state that what Iraq possessed in the early 90s were actual WMD. It speaks of plans, programs and documents, but not actual weapons.

The letter writer also seems to be certain that everyone whom the American military detains is, indeed, a “terrorist”. The fact that the writer refers to the “terrorists” as “Iraqi terrorists” makes his accusation even more interesting.

It’s obvious that everyone held prisoner by the US military is not automatically guilty of supporting terrorism. The US has let hundreds of “prisoners” go free after holding them for months, even years at a time. Would the US ever set proven terrorists free?

From my perspective, most of the world considered Saddam Hussein, a few high-ranking government officials and the Iraqi Republican Guard the only terrorists in Iraq until the US invaded that country and invalidated what were once well protected Iraqi borders. The collapse of those borders was the main reason why such a vast number of terrorists were able to infiltrate into Iraq. These terrorists would otherwise have never been able to see the light of day in Iraq.

However, here’s the most important point, in my opinion.

Let’s pretend.

It’s 1965. America never invaded Vietnam.

The US and the USSR are the only nations which possess weapons of mass destruction. The two countries sign an agreement to be rid of WMD by 1967. A UN resolution is drawn up to support the agreement.

Each country agrees to allow UN inspectors to physically monitor its progress in destroying its WMD arsenal.

The USSR says that it suspects that America isn’t complying with the agreement or the UN resolution, even though UN inspectors have found no weapons in the US.

The Soviets demand that America immediately comply with the treaty and resolution. The US insists it is complying and continues to allow inspections.

Suddenly, the Soviets announce to the world that America has 48 hours to install a government “that can be trusted to comply with the UN resolution”. The Soviets say they will invade the US if this change in government doesn’t happen within that 48 hour time period.

In reality, America hadn’t gotten rid of its weapons and now knows that the USSR is going to invade it.

The US quickly moves its WMD to Canada for the purpose of hiding it from the invading Soviets.

The Soviets attack, overpower America, overthrow the government, capture LBJ and occupy the former USA.

Absurd, you say?

I recently read a letter to the editor in which the writer complained that the newspaper unfairly displayed photos of Iraqi “terrorist prisoners” allegedly being abused by the military while relegating a story about Iraq’s persistent efforts to hide its WMD to the back pages.

In light of the above scenario, why would Iraq move WMD to Syria or any other country?

What government, knowing it’s about to be invaded, would hide or move its weapons?

What government would opt to be overthrown?

What nation would opt to be occupied?

The illegal possession of controlled substances is against the law in the US. I suggest that whatever Kool-Aid The Regime’s supporters are drinking should be added to that list.

To friendship,
Michael

“There is but one evil, war. All the other proclaimed evils such as hate, greed, discrimination, and jealousy are only sub-categories of it.” – Jose Barreiro

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mind