Thursday, February 01, 2007

A Word to the Unwise

I went to a Billy Talent concert on Monday January 29th in Winnipeg and heard a band called Anti-Flag. Not only were they a shitty band in my opinion, but they were anti-George Bush. I have no problem with that however; I realized that when a shitty band wants to stay in the spotlight they have to find a niche. What better niche than being anti war!

Is George Bush evil? Inevitably he will be in the eyes of those who disagree with him, and for those people I would ask that they consider this. Had George Bush ignored these terrorist organizations (that may well be miles and miles from us) and ignored the threat that they pose not only to the US but to many other countries in the world, when the terrorists attacked on USA soil, who would the nation blame?

George W. Bush.

Was there weapons of mass destruction? Who cares? Did Saddam use hundreds of sprayer plains to kill 30,000 Kurds in the 1980’s. Your damn right he did, and for hate crimes like that he found himself at the end of a rope.

And for your information, a weapon of mass destruction can be as small as a bottle of Tylenol. The right virus in a bottle that small, if dumped into a water supply of a large city could kill everyone and anyone who drinks or even comes in contact with the water. And really, it’s not hard to hide a bottle of Tylenol somewhere in a huge country when you know that the weapons inspectors are on their way. But moving onward…

Is Saddam an evil dictator? You bet.

Was it our war? It had to be somebody’s.

Why??? Why did we start war over there? Everything was so peaceful in the USA?

Why? Because there are terrorists, not just Iraq terrorists, but global terrorists and with the technology and resources that are available to terrorist organizations today someone has to stand up and say

“Because you are a terrorist organization we will not allow you to have deadly weapons, nor will we tolerate your organization for hatred against peaceful mankind. Either disband or we will disarm you.”

That was and is the responsibility of the United Nations, however, they failed with regards to that task and President Bush picked up the slack and spoke out saying that our country will do its part to defend our earth against global terrorists. These terrorist organizations are formed by a united hatred for mankind and fueled by the evil intensions to cause harm to whomever they desire.

How do those in the spotlight try to sway you into believing that the fight against terrorism is pure evil?

Well… The band “Anti Flag” talks about A University professor who gave a lecture talking about how the war on terrorism is just an excuse by those in power to send the masses out to kill one another for the gain of the rich and powerful.

So… Is that statement true just because a university professor said it? Is he smarter than you?

No.

He may have more knowledge from books, but that makes him no more intelligent that you or I. Some teenagers are more intelligent that middle-aged people. Intelligence has nothing to do with age. Notice how the writer in the statement uses the phrase “kill each other” like the war is all about a president who likes to see killings to get rich and power. First of all its costing the US money and they gain no power from it. They freed Iraq and are handing their freedom back to them. Second “killing each other” is a statement given by a person whom I would label a simpleton. It implies that the specially trained soldiers sent over to destroy and bring down a terrorist organization are nothing more than a bunch of children in a useless schoolyard fight. That is disrespectful to the men and women that put their lives on the line to protect your country. For those of you who mock our soldiers I say have a little respect for those who allow you to keep your freedom, even when you mock there very purpose, they continue to protect your freedom you ignorant jack ass.

How else do those in the spotlight trick you?

Well with slogans like “Bush likes war”, “war is evil…”

Did you know that you have the freedom to live in a country that allows you your freedom of speech, the right to choose, and the right to live the way you want to live. How did your country maintain this freedom for YOU? It’s a 3 letter word. War. Our ancestors fought and some even died, they gave their lives to save this country to keep your freedom. Bush doesn’t like war or death any more than you or I do, but sometimes it is necessary to protect our freedom.

Rebel – Fight the authorities!!! My advice… make sure you have a good reason. If your reasoning is simply because “war is bad so Bush is bad”, that’s a pretty shallow view of the situation. It’s the simple minded people that come up with slogans like “war is bad so Bush is evil”. Obviously anyone who believes that the above statement is a relevant conclusion is not intelligent enough to realize that whether you agree or disagree with Bush, the situation is more complicated than just “War is bad so Bush is evil”.

Are you an idiot?

I hope not, so know what you believe and why even if you disagree with Bush. If you are going to speak out against something, you need to know the reasons why, otherwise you are just an ignorant lemming that will do what everyone else is doing.

Fight for something!!! – We all like to be on the side of something fighting for something or someone. Musicians these days are fighting Bush calling him a lover of war. However, Saddam killed literally thousands of people at the drop of a hat. He was such an evil man that he would stand on his front porch and shoot people for sport. Why not write songs that inspire us to stand up and fight for those people? Those people have been terrorized for years with no hope of peace or freedom. We only got a small taste with the 911 terrorism, and we were devastated, while entire countries have been ruled by terrorists and dictators for decades.

Is WAR evil? Maybe it’s not as evil as it is necessary to allow us to have all the freedoms that we enjoy. Consider that the “evil” lies in the hearts of the people who love evil and want to kill for pleasure.

Is it necessary? – After all, they weren’t over here bombing our buildings! Why is it any of our business?

Look at it this way, where there is an evil force in the world out to harm people, we need to step in and help if we can, not only for their benefit, but for ours as well. We are a human race, not an American race. If we let terrorism get out of hand, it may become more than we can handle in the future so we must handle it now. Terrorists don’t have any respect for any specific countries, not even their own. They send their own men to their death using them as suicide bombs and this is not to protect anything or anyone, but just because of their pure hatred and desire to kill.

Consider this also:

Bush had a choice, ignore the reality of the growth and gaining power of terrorism in Iraq and work on his career to increase his approval ratings, or go against the grain and stop this terrorist group before it gets so far out of hand that they become a global threat and go from country to country destroying lives and property. Those who have no respect for the human race need to be stopped.

Will it cost us?

Yes,

but what will it cost us later if we do nothing now?

This is your country, yes, but remember, this is your EARTH too, and we are going to have to protect it. If we have the means and the resources to protect it, then we have a responsibility to do just that.

8 Comments:

Blogger Connie said...

Wow Ty! What an awesome blog. Very well put. You should submit as a letter to the editior of the brandon sun.

7:16 AM  
Blogger Connie said...

Wow Ty! What an awesome blog. It is very well put. You should submit it as a letter to the editor of the brandon sun.

7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know, i do agree with you that saddam had to be stopped, and i'm glad that he no longer is a threat to his country or ours. The problem i had with the "war on terror" is that George bush did it in retaliation of 9/11. One would think he would go after the people responsible for 9/11. I think he went for saddam because he was an easier target than bin laden, and afganistan doesn't have the oil reserves that iraq does. If he was going to fight the war on terror for not only his own country but the rest of the world, there's afria and the civil wars there that are wiping out tribes. How about North Korea, they've been quite outspoken about the nucular weapons they have, and have actually threatened the U.S. with retaliation if they step in. Now Bush is talking about going into Iran as well, what do they have in common with Iraq? OIL!
like i said earlier i'm glad that Saddam is not a threat, and in all honesty i would probably support this war better if bush was more honest about why they went in. Saddam did a lot of horrible things, he gassed entire towns, mothers and children were dead in the streets, he tortured many people and terrorized those he was in charge of. Those are reasons i would have accepted for going into this war, but Bush needs to be more honest, come out and say why he wants this war. Don't hide behind terrorist attacks that we have yet to resolve nor hold those who were actually responsible accountable.
With that said, good blog though, i don't fully agree but you did make some good points that made me think.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Tyler said...

Thank you for your comments anonymous.

I would just like to ask you to consider this; perhaps George Bush decided that because of 911, we can no longer ignore terrorism in other countries. Obviously he has an interest in protecting the oil reserves. Is that selfish? Perhaps, but if America runs out of oil, then they have another huge crisis and where would we turn for help? If America has a supply of oil, then they can focus on other problems like global terrorism. Iraq can supply oil, but they have trouble bringing down terrorism and Dictators like Saddam. I see an opportunity for give and take here.

Agreed there are other countries Bush could focus on in regard to terrorism and I hope he does, but you need to protect countries that can help supply your needs first and foremost. If you are going to land in a crisis, who can you help? Saddam is very much an easier target than Bin Laden, but consider that Bin Laden can be caught later as he poses no immediate threat to the US or their resources. Same with Iran, they have oil, is it a bad thing to protect it? Seems selfish at first, but is it selfish or strategic?

I agree, its not the best way to do things, to go into Iraq saying the agenda is to free Iraq and stop global terrorism and leave out the part about the oil reserves, but if I were president, I would probably downplay the oil part as other countries might frown upon his agenda to protect oil reserves. Of course they know he has an agenda to protect the oil, but it is one thing to actually be outspoken about it. I don't agree with every move Bush has made, but I am not sure I would have done any better.

Lastly, I truly believe Bush had it in his heart to free the Iraqi people. I believe Bush is neither an eloquent nor inspirational speaker, but when he spoke about bringing freedom to the people of Iraq, I saw and even felt what was in his heart. I believe he knew he needed to protect the oil in Iraq, but that he also saw it as an opportunity to bring freedom to an oppressed people.

Thank you again for your comments anonymous. You made excellent points that were very well structured. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. Please feel free to post again!
Ty

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see your point about America needing the oil, but i think that we are going in a very dangerous direction. Right now its oil america needs, so we take up war with Iraq, whats next, what country will they go after next to gain access to their natural resources?
The u.s. is a very strong country, the strongest, they're probably going to be able to win any war they go into. Does that mean they should be allowed to go into any country of their choosing and start a war, especially with their own best interests in mind? At what point do we draw the line?
As for Bin laden not posing an immidiate threat... Bin laden wasn't considered a threat on September 11, 2001 but he caused one of the most memorable terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. I would think that he would be high on the list of immidiate threats. He's attacked once, and was very successful, i imagine, he isn't just going to stop there.
I actually don't mind Bush, out of the last few presidents, he's been one of the better ones. I just can't believe the lengths he goes to, to ensure the interest of his country's needs at the expense of others.
Again, enjoyed reading your responce, it made me think. Good job!!

9:07 PM  
Blogger Tyler said...

Hi there,

Thanks for posting again. I really enjoy reading your insights.
I can see we differ on the issue invasion of Iraq, I see it more as a necessity in the respect of defeating global terrorism. It’s my understanding that Bush felt an urgency to protect a helpless country that is governed by an evil dictator and a country that currently supplies his country with a resource, oil. That country helped his people, he should help the people of that country, not only this, but Bush has a passion to do away with terrorist organizations which I admire. I see things in this light… the US has the power to help the helpless and they decided to under the direction of George W.Bush. If I was going to help someone I would probably help someone who could help me be stronger to therefore help others. That may sound like an excuse to protect a resource that Bush could use, but that doesn’t mean that those were his intensions.
As for Bin Laden, I suppose every terrorist is a threat. However, security has been stepped up and I think 911 made the country more aware of the dangers of global terrorists and the steps we can take to prevent another attack, plus Canada is in Afghanistan, so that’s a help. I am not sure how high Bin Laden is on the terrorist threat list.

Thanks again for posting. More comments always welcome and feel free to leave your name (smile).

Tyler

10:49 PM  
Blogger Krig the Viking said...

Wow, Ty, I can't believe I missed this when you posted it. Great post!

As for the debate here in the comments section, we need to remember that Saddam wasn't just some random leader of some random oil-possessing country. Iraq had been a thorn in America's side for a decade, since the first Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait to gain control of their oil fields. Kuwait asked America for help, and the first George Bush and his allies went in and fought Saddam off. In order to prevent them from destroying him completely, Saddam signed a treaty with the Americans. If he would disarm and let inspectors in to make sure he had disarmed, the Americans wouldn't take him down. The 90s were a long game of cat-and-mouse with Saddam playing games with the weapons inspectors, and then finally violating the treaty and kicking them out. Bill Clinton unfortunately didn't have the stones to do what should have been done when a treaty like that is broken -- go to war again. When Bush the Younger was elected, Iraq and Saddam Hussein were high on his list of priorities. Then 9-11 happened, and everything changed. All of a sudden, it wasn't good enough to play games with Saddam about any weapons of mass destruction he might have. If he had them, which he claimed he did and acted like he did (why else would he kick the weapons inspectors out?), the risk that he would give them to terrorists in order to blow up America was too great to allow. After all, this is the same Saddam that tried to have George Bush Senior assassinated.

It's now 2007, and it turns out Saddam was just bluffing about the WMDs. Gee, oops. If some guy points a gun at my head and says he's gonna kill me, should I feel bad about shooting him with my own gun if I find out later his gun wasn't real? Of course not. At the very least, a dangerous man is dead and the Middle East is that much safer. We shouldn't feel bad if he pretended to be more dangerous than he was.

1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk casinos[/url] brake the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]casinolasvegass.com[/url] manumitted no set aside reward at the leading [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatch casino
[/url].

8:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home