Afghanistan?

What about Afghnistan? Does anyone have any idea why we are still there, and apparently still losing? Gates has been there whining because there don’t seem to be enough European troops willing to fight and die for the cause. You might well ask, what cause? What is our cause in Afghanistan? Why are we still there? It is pretty obvious we are not working very hard to get Osama bin Laden. And we surely do not intend to occupy the entire country and turn it into an American colony (at least I don’t think we are quite that insane). In order to do that we would doubtless need about a million man army and perhaps one hundred years (no one has ever managed to conquer Afghanistan). As far as I know, aside from the claim that we want to get Osama bin Laden (but aren’t really trying), the only reason we have to be there at all is because we want to build some kind of oil pipeline through that unfortunate country and manage therefore to bypass Russia (I could be wrong about this, if so, please advise). So…why should European countries want to sacrifice their soldiers for our hypothetical pipeline? NATO was created to control Russia (which presumably used to be a threat but, realistically, is no longer). It was certainly not created to help us create a pipeline through Afghanistan. Oh, well, those dumb Europeans, what do they know? I do not believe there is any doubt whatsoever in the minds of those with IQ’s above say, 70, that we are inevitably going to “fail” in Afghanistan. What other outcome is even theoretically possible? If you know, please let me know. This has to be the single most useless military adventure in history, worse, even, than the “Charge of the Light Brigade.” But what do I know?

Well, Barack Hussein Obama, god bless him, has now won Maine, in addition to Nebraska, Washington, and Louisiana (and the Virgin Islands). This means he has won at least 19 out of 30 states so far. If he wins in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington D.C., which he is quite likely to do, Hillary will not have won a single state since super Tuesday. This will have to be excruciatingly embarrassing for the Clintons no matter how many delegates they still have. And what if it then continues and Obama wins at least some more states (which he almost certainly will? We will have a situation in which Obama has won a majority of states (probably by substantial majorities), plus the popular vote, but the Clintons still refuse to give up, hoping the superdelegates (party insiders) will save them. Disaster for the Democratic party is lurking here and it may not be at all easy to avert it.

I am having a certain amount of trouble over the issue of gun control. It seems to me the problem has to do with your initial assumptions. If, for example, you start with the assumption that the 2nd amendment can be taken to apply to individual gun owners as well as, or in addition to, militias, then obviously there should be no problem with the individual ownership of guns. But then you are confronted with the question of what kind of guns. If you assume the reason for owning guns is simply practical, that is, either for self defense or hunting, there is no reason you should not be able to own pistols or shotguns or rifles, useful for hunting or self-protection. But, then, why should you want any other kinds of guns, like fully automatic weapons, 50 calibre machine guns, or such? If you argument for them is because you need to protect yourself from the government itself, then why should there be any restrictions at all, Why not bazookas, rocket launchers, howitzers, even tanks? But then the government would still have the air force, submarines, nuclear bombs, poison gas, who knows what all. How would you protect yourself from that? You see the problem, I hope. It basically reduces itself to a matter of trust. If you trust your own government you should be satisfied with hunting weapons and handguns at most. If not, there are no limits. Of course no one in the United States (or hardly anyone) is going to argue that people should not be allowed guns at all. That would mean no self-protection or hunting. But how about inner-city violence? Gangs, that sort of thing? When it is bad enough should a city be allowed to ban guns? Certain kinds of guns? What? I swear this is not a simple problem. Therefore, I wash my hands of it and go with the status quo, whatever that may be.

When confronted with a difficult problem always take the easy way out. Take immigration for another example…aaagh, no forget it. My tiny brain is overtaxed. But how about the Israeli genocide of Palestinians? Should they be allowed to herd the legimitely elected democratic Palestinians into tiny Gaza, shut off their electricity and food supplies, bomb and slowly starve them, and whatever they please, with the blessings of the Bush/Cheney administration? Oh, excuse me, mustn’t upset the Israeli lobby. Israel? Palestine? What do they have to do with the Middle East? I give up. These problems are just too difficult to deal with. Eat, drink, and be merry, tomorrow we die.

LKBIQ:
“There warn’t anybody at the church, except maybe a hog or two, for there warn’t any lock on the door, and hogs likes a puncheon floor in summertime because it’s cool. If you notice, most folks don’t go to church only when they’ve got to; but a hog is different.”
Mark Twain