.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Wahttehhog Organization

Monday, May 01, 2006

From the desk of the editor

Excuse me for deviating from the normal ramblings here, but your retard wishes to speak his mind.
Ahem, We live in a modern society, a democratic society, a humane society. It's the year 2006. We know that nuclear weapons kill hundreds of thousands, doom thousands more to slow death by cancer and radiation poisoning, and cause ecological catastrophe on a global scale. Launching one would most likely cause a retaliatory strike powerful enough to end civilization, and possibly all life as we know it. That's the M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) theory. Our leaders are intelligent, rational people, Right? That's why we elected them, Right? We know they would never seriously consider launching them, RIGHT? Wrong. Today the Bush administration submitted a statement that in dealing with Iran, the nuclear option would always be in consideration. I don't know why we think we can get away with nuking them. Maybe because they have no WMDs of their own? That effectively nullifies the M.A.D. doctrine, right? Let's get this in cement: Launching nuclear weapons against our fellow human beings, no matter their capacity to retaliate, is the worst possible action we could ever commit. Regulate Iran, embargo them, even invade them, just don't nuke them, unless you want doomsday to come a whole lot sooner. Remember, the small amount of nuclear nations in the world attempt to regulate control of them so that they never need to be used. Wouldn't using nuclear weapons in the pursuit of this aim make the purpose completely null and void? The government may tell you we're only going to use "tactical nuclear devices" which "aren't as bad" as full blown atomic, thermonuclear, hydrogen, nuetron whatever, you get the idea. Enjoy this year, enjoy the next and all that come after, because they might be your last, and all of humanity's. This may very well be the beginning of the end. My bunker fits 20 people, so you should probably reserve your spot now.

23 Comments:

  • Where do I signup?

    By Blogger Reyals Bemus, at 9:47 PM  

  • You have to keep the enemy afraid. We most likely would not use nuclear weapons, but we certainly can't say we won't! Unless Iran bombs Israel, then we're good. If not, say good bye to Iran. Iran still doesn't have the technology to reach us with one.

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 3:07 PM  

  • Maybe keeping a campaign of constant fear against our percieved "enemies" is what causes such hatred in the third world?

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 6:20 PM  

  • I know, right.

    By Blogger Reyals Bemus, at 6:57 PM  

  • Iran is a radical Isalmic state that has a government that is considerably similar with Hitler's regime. We can't just let them build their military as we sit around ignoring Ahmadinejad's threats to "blow Israel off the map." The United Nations is doing exactly what the League of Nations did prior to WW2, it's failing. The UN is not doing the job it's there to do, therefore, we must do it.

    "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
    - Albert Einstein

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 9:06 PM  

  • But is invasion, or aggresive action really the appropriate course of action when we're already scraped thin in two Gulags that there's no foreseeable exit from?

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 9:32 PM  

  • "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
    -Edmund Burke

    Do I need to make it any clearer?!

    By the way, isn't it amazing that the Bush administration has liberated two (two) countries?

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 9:43 PM  

  • Liberated? I guess what you have to ask yourself is if an existence of chaos, violence, death, economic disaster, fear, and corruption is better or worse then a dictatorship. The nations we've "liberated" are no better off then they were before. So not everyone in Afghanistan has to have a beard, big deal. They're still the poorest nation on the planet, whether or not some people in Kabul can buy B&W TVs now. So some women don't need Burkas anymore, tribal "honor rape" occurs en-masse still. And look at Iraq. The only difference is that people used to be killed by Secret Police, and now they're killed by IEDs. Selflessly throwing ourselves into every oppressed nation isn't going to solve any of humanity's problems.

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 9:52 PM  

  • Well, I guess I won the Iran debate....

    Now to respond to your last post.

    "I guess what you have to ask yourself is if an existence of chaos, violence, death, economic disaster, fear, and corruption is better or worse then a dictatorship."

    You see Ryan, before there was more chaos, more violence, more fear, certainly more corruption, and there was a dictatorship. What the people now have is more oppurtunity.

    "They're still the poorest nation on the planet."

    They are?!

    The only difference is that people used to be killed by Secret Police, and now they're killed by IEDs.

    I don't even know where to begin with this one, people in the west seem to not realize how bad Saddam really was. IEDs?! Iraq was one the most mine-infested nations in the world when Saddam was in power. (Partly to subdue the Kurdish population in northern Iraq.)

    Selflessly throwing ourselves into every oppressed nation isn't going to solve any of humanity's problems.

    Do you even remember why we went to Afghanistan?! And even the democrats believed that Saddam was a danger.

    Life in Iraq and Afghanistan is only getting better, did you really think things would be peaceful that quickly, if so, you obviously don't understand what life was like for the two countries before we came into the picture.

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 7:39 PM  

  • What you have to understand is that we are attempting to improve the stability of other nations at the expense of our own. Had we waited until Saddam died, or enlisted the help of other nations, control would be much easier, and our global image would be vastly improved. Also, do you seriously believe we "liberated" Iraq because our administration cares about human rights violations? I don't see the Bush administration charging into Sudan, where ethnic genocide has been occuring for years, or Columbia, where children are kidnapped at a rate of about 30 an hour, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Myanmar which are on the list of Amnesty Internation Human Rights violators. No, we're on a warpath against nations we percieve as "threats" or nations that have things we want. We refrain from invading Sudan or Columbia because their problems pose no immediate threat to us. We refrain from attacking Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because they're willing to cooperate and play our ballgame. When you consider that the administration was perfectly willing to shove some glowsticks up some asses when it meant getting ahead, it should be clear they don't care about the basic rights of others.

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 9:17 PM  

  • el quida moron also the pipeline.(oil)sorry if el quida is spelled wrong ignore it.also whe're threatning to blow them to hell with nukes.

    By Blogger [wthg}jondrunken master, at 9:21 PM  

  • I cant believe i agree with ryan.I feel dirty again uuugh

    By Blogger [wthg}jondrunken master, at 9:22 PM  

  • ignore the insult pete you had two sentences that looked like one.(that changed the meaning).

    By Blogger [wthg}jondrunken master, at 9:26 PM  

  • We are taking care of threats and improving the stability of their nation. There's only so much our president can do; he's not God. Yes, the conditions in many African countries are awful, but you are underestimating how bad Iraq was. Would you rather have us do nothing? The Bush administration does care about basic rights because they care about ours. That is why they eliminate those threats.

    "Had we waited until Saddam died, or enlisted the help of other nations, control would be much easier and our global image would be vastly improved."

    If we waited until Saddam died his son would have taken over (who would have probably been worst) and we did enlist other countries and I'm sure our image would improve if people like you gave them more credit.

    By the way, you're acting as if, and leading other people to believe that the US is doing nothing in Africa. Remember those pirates in Somalia? The US navy is over there patrolling the most dangerous waters in the world, and they've done a great job keeping the peace. Not to long ago the US backed the UN to take over the peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region. Our president also ordered a freeze on the assets of anyone felt to have posed a threat to stability in Sudan's strife-torn region of Darfur. Contrary to popular belief, our government does try to improve the stability of these countries; they just get over looked, perhaps because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Jon, I really have no idea what you were trying to say. I think you were trying to say something about Al-Qaeda, but that’s all I got (besides the fact that you, unfortunately, are siding with Ryan.

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 10:08 PM  

  • Oh, we froze some assets, big effort there. We sent some battleships into a see populated by militiamen on Bassmaster boats, really sticking our necks out there. And we backed the UN taking over the peacekeeping efforts to get it off of our plates. The US cares about human rights when it suits our own aims, and at no other time. If we really cared about the rights "bestowed to all men by their creator" we'd allow immigrants who make a harder living doing jobs we don't want to live here. That section of the constitution should be re-written to say "bestowed to all American men by their creator."

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 10:44 PM  

  • Hey Pete why did we go into iraq?give an explanation

    By Blogger [wthg}jondrunken master, at 6:25 AM  

  • "If we really cared about the rights "bestowed to all men by their creator" we'd allow immigrants who make a harder living doing jobs we don't want to live here."

    We do allow immigrants to live here, and who says we don't want those jobs?

    "Oh, we froze some assets, big effort there. We sent some battleships into a see populated by militiamen on Bassmaster boats, really sticking our necks out there."

    First off, those waters are the most dangerous in the world. You are undermining the situation. Those pirates are equipped with very heavy weaponry. Also, are you saying that we should "stick our necks out there?" Why, so we can get our heads shot off?

    "And we backed the UN taking over the peacekeeping efforts to get it off of our plates. The US cares about human rights when it suits our own aims, and at no other time."

    Who says?! Maybe (*gasp*) America does care about human rights, yet everything we do gets overlooked, and "isn't good enough" (or maybe our media doesn't say a word about it). How many of our soldiers would you like to have die before we're making enough of an effort?


    Jon, I've already answered that question. Now I have a question for you. Why shouldn't "we" have gone to Iraq?

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 5:04 PM  

  • You're assuming that we went to war to fix problems with human rights. The truth is that there are nations which have committed worse offenses then Iraq. Had we cared we would have gone after them. I suppose you think it's just a coincidence that both Dick And Bush have deep roots in the petroleum business, and Iraq has the second largest reserve in the world?

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 6:12 PM  

  • You're assuming that we went to war for oil.

    I said the main reason for going to Iraq was because Saddam was a threat.

    "The truth is that there are nations which have committed worse offenses then Iraq."

    A demonstration in Washington, DC last weekend, demanded that President Bush immediately stop the genocide occuring in Darfur. Since all other remedies have failed, I assume they want the President to send in American troops, but that can't be right, because looking at the protestors, they are the same ones who protested against the US invading a country which had not attacked us, nor was a direct threat to us. I don't remember Sudan ever having attacked us?

    It seems as if you think it's okay for us to go to Africa, but not the middle east? I don't see you holding up a 'No War for Oil' placard when it comes to the situation in Sudan.

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 7:36 PM  

  • You misunderstand the reason for war. I don't think the anti-Iraq protestors were against the war because they believe there's no such thing as a good war. They most likely protested because they saw no reason to put U.S. troops in danger. Sudan constitutes a large enough injustice to justify sending in troops.

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 9:07 PM  

  • People are against the war because they think there was no reason (Saddam didn’t pose a threat) or that it was for oil.

    "Sudan constitutes a large enough injustice to justify sending in troops."

    So if we sent our troops to Sudan, people would suddenly put away there 'No War for Oil' placard?

    No, sorry, Ryan. Sudan has oil, and gas. And that's precisely why China has been propping up this little Islamic-fascist paradise and stalling any meaningful UN action. So maybe you want the US to act. Now that would be hypocrisy considering your opposition to the war in Iraq.

    Read the details on aid to Darfur. While short of promises, the US is the only country that has given aid in hundreds of millions (it specifically refers to the EU having not contributed any). So the statement you made in an earlier comment, "And we backed the UN taking over the peacekeeping efforts to get it off of our plates," is simply not true.

    Nobody will step in and stop this atrocity in Darfur. The world will sit on it’s hands and wait for the US to act - or not act, and then the world will universally criticize US for acting - or not acting.

    “They most likely protested because they saw no reason to put U.S. troops in danger.”

    I doubt that’s the main reason (or a reason at all). And sending our troops to Sudan would also be putting our soldiers in danger.

    Without being a hypocrite you really can't say that we should have sent our troops to Sudan instead of Iraq.

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 11:00 PM  

  • Yes, I can, I most certainly can. The fact remains that your presidential candidate can't pronounce "Darfur" or "Abu-Ghraib." Therefore I win by default.

    By Blogger Marquis de Suave, at 8:20 AM  

  • Have you ever heard Ted Kennedy or Tom Menino speak?

    President Bush has an accent, so what? I've read that Abe Licoln had an accent. Did that make him a bad president?

    By Blogger Wahttehhog Pete, at 2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home