|
IS IT WAR
OR A MEDIA EVENT? |
|||||
| For a short while after the horrific events of September eleventh I thought that at least the American people might finally begin to pay attention to our government's foreign policies. All the things that we have been doing to other people of the world and particularly what might upset others so much that they would kill themselves in these terrible and vengeful attacks. But alas, as the death toll from the World Trade Center fell below the number of civilians wiped out in our attack on Panama City without anyone drawing a comparison, especially since that attack was to dig out another elusive individual who had once been on the CIA payroll, I lost all hope that Americans would question our government's policies. So far, the United States has been at war for about four months and we've suffered one combat casualty on the front, Sergeant Nathan Rangel, who was apparently killed by a 14 year old. A single casualty of an all out war and eleven accidental deaths. Don't you find that just a little bit odd? More news people than soldiers have been killed in this war. And for almost four months, we had the President of the United States making what seemed like daily appearances on television to assure the nation that we would get the "evil doers." And how about all those weapons, cell phones, and computers we're now finding in some of the Al Quida caves. No doubt these were all being run by huge generators the cave dwellers own and fuel. Have you seen any cell phone towers in the ruins of Afghanistan? In my home town, people are complaining about these towers all over the place. Meanwhile, safe in their studios, other talking heads are trying to guess which nation will be next on the agenda of wiping out terrorist networks and anyone who supports them, except us of course. With a midterm election year facing us, it makes me wonder whether the democrats are going to stop letting so many people into the country without background checks just so they can vote for their benefactors. Seems to me, what we ought to be asking is whether the Northern Alliance is willing to move into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Somalia or whatever to do the dirty work for us. While we sit back and lob weapons of mass destruction from a safe distance or altitude, to be followed by lobbing tons of money into rebuilding the destruction. For awhile, two missionary girls were our heroes and the center of attention. Of course, we didn't refer to them as religious ladies with the arrogance to think they could convert people who pray to Allah three times a day. We chose to call them "aides," as though they were in Afghanistan to pass out food, teach irrigation, or provide some grass roots help. How long has it been since some Muslims knocked on your door to pass out literature or persuade you to their faith? Lately, one of the big subjects of debate is whether we should fly prisoners to our base in Guantanamo or send them by ship. What do you suppose Americans would do if Cuba, China, or Russia wanted a military base in our country? And what happens if some of these Taliban prisoners escape into Cuba? We've already tried to assassinate Cuba’s leader, accused them of stealing property belonging to American companies, the Mafia, and drove them into seeking protection under the communist umbrella and then the Pope, embargoed their poor island nation, and put them on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. What's next? Once the prisoners are allowed to escape, are we going to accuse Cuba of "harboring terrorists" and bomb the hell out of them too? Maybe we should send the Taliban prisoners to Nicaragua, that "big red menace" to our South, where "from the halls of Montezuma" we should have built the canal in the first place instead of occupying their country for thirty years to make certain no one else built a canal there. The spot where a river already runs almost all the way through the Isthmus. And how about the "November 17" terrorists in Greece who have been killing diplomats and American bankers? How about "Shining Path" in Peru? Can't we work these obstructionists into the mix somehow? Ron Paul (R-TX) tells us that we have more than 250,000 troops in 41 different countries. Of course, you know that we're still protecting Japan and Germany because they are not allowed a standing army or the expense of a Pentagon, a trap we'll never fall into again. But what about the other 39 nations? Are we really the world's police or the bully bad guys? That's the real unanswered question, isn't it? |
|||||