Friday, January 26, 2007

Memorable U.S. State Dept. Errors, 1991-2000

It should be considered by historians and political pundits alike: Specifically, should the United States have gone after Saddam Hussein as they did ?? Or, should the U.S. have sought him out as an ally against terrorism in the Middle East?
Here's what the Localmalcontent thinks, for what it's worth:
After the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States should have gone to Saddam and said, "Listen, pipsqueak, do you want to stay in power, living in the custom which you are so used to? 'Cause if you do, here's what you need to do: You better stop killing your citizens of Shiite and Kurdish descent, YESTERDAY, understand? Do this, while continuing to oppose the ultra-leftist-Islamic Ayatollahs next door in Iran, and you can count on the blessings of the United States. Hell, Saddam, you are old enough to realize that you may need to count on these different tribes within Iraq someday- don't kill them off with the poisonous gas, OK? Stop the killing, stop the aggression towards Kuwait, and focus--FOCUS on the real threat to you, namely Iran."
Also, here's an updated shopping guide to our latest weapons... go ahead and take a look.

Saddam was an unmitigated asshole, no question about it. But he was our unmitigated asshole in the region, and he knew how to control the various factions within Iraq. With better management, he could've been our tool. Instead, we made him out to be so wicked for his desire for the 19th Iraqi state of Kuwait, that we forgot that he was only power hungry, and that with our selective management, he could have had his power, and we Americans, we Westerners, could have had a real insight into Islam still. Don't we understand the hunger for power ourselves? Maybe not vocally, but we all do.

Of course, all of this is hindsight, the very best thing going in vision today.

And it isn't as if the United States hasn't loved or not been in cahoots with other despots throughout history; but this unbridled devotion to "our version of democracy" isn't exactly applicable everywhere. In many cases, we must use and apply what institutions of power are already there in place. After George H. W. Bush, # 41, left office with Saddam still in the Iraqi seat of power, what happened?
What happened to our State Department's wise and thoughtful espionage? Didn't the State Department, especially after the initial bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, fully follow through in seeing the REAL threat, namely Wahabbi Islam, bin Laden, et. al?
What a wonderful ally Saddam could have been in 1994. But we saw him by then, as a continuing threat to the Wahabbists in power in Kuwait only, and it would have been OH! so politically incorrect to have kept silent about his deranged, failed ambition to conquer Kuwait. To stop him was right, and correct. But then to disavow ever knowing him, ever having used him for our own ends in the middle East, was the final FAILURE OF THE 20th CENTURY on the part of the United States, the Failure of President Bill Clinton, his state department, and secretary Madeline Albright.
Honestly, it is so stupid, and nowadays, so sad. For now here we are, in what will be a global war against Islamic radicals, Islamic fundamentalists, Islamic whatever-you-want-to-call-thems, but maybe, just maybe some guy named Saddam was the lynchpin to the whole thing. Sorry for the "lynch" reference, Saddam, but it nonetheless applies. Because now, who in that area do we depend on? Upon whom should the United States place its bets?
The wager windows close very soon, so get your wagers in NOW.

My gosh, Saddam wasn't even a Muslim, not until he saw that it would be politically advantageous to him to learn how to prostrate himself in feigned Muslim prayer, ass up to God, and face down toward Allah, of course. IF we are in a war against the type of deranged form of Islam called Wahabbi, and our on-again, off-again ally in the region is NOT a Muslim.....HELLO??????!!!

((60 second time-out for catching one's breath here))

During his one stint at President, Dhimmi Carter enabled the Ayatollah Khomeini to ascend to power in Iran, ending 25+ years exile in France, to spread this infant form of Satanic hatred and violence. During the time that the 53 American diplomats were kidnapped by Muslim radicals, and held hostage in Tehran for 444 days, Mr. Carter initiated a limp, lame rescue attempt, wherein all the weaponry and helicopters were inundated with Persian sand. "Duh, we didn't count on desert sand to gum up the works. Sorry, boys," and That Was It, that was all for our rescue attempt. Not until the very day that President-elect Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, on January 20, 1981, were the American hostages released, and flown to West Germany, and ultimately to Maryland.
***What lesson should the United States take from this singular instance? That Iran and Islam only understands, respects and bows to real power and aggression. In that time, that power and aggression took the form of one Ronald Wilson Reagan. And his 'no-bullshit, take-no-prisoners attitude. Since that time of Ronald Reagan, what has transpired?

'Nuff said. Learn the lesson of history, dear naive, dumbassed liberals, and remain free. Or one day, beg your Islamic masters for your privilege to pay the Ummah tax, and keep your head attached.

No comments: