Almost in the spirit of the earlier one, but without all the confusing irony and humor, David C. Atkins floats perhaps the very worst idea ever.
I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine: In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed.
Overreact much? If someone attacks us, we'll just attack everybody and poison the planet. And then we'll hold our breath 'til we turn gay. Or something. Remember when I mentioned Mr. Atkins' lack of any sense of irony? Duck.
The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace,"
We, on the other hand, apparently make no such pretense.
TrackBackI don't know whether to laugh or cry,
and it confuses my psychiatrists when I do both simultaneously :) :(
Continuing with the theme of disturbingly bad concepts
--> Children's knitted gimp suits
http://tinyurl.com/668xw
Really freaks me out.
Though not in a good way.
"Doctor, I'm sure this medication isn't strong enough!"
Posted by: phthalic anhydride at December 5, 2004 11:49 PMHe just kind of tacked on North Korea there as an afterthought, didn't he.
One problem among many with a public declaration of such intentions is that all other nuclear armed countries, including our allies, will adopt a pre-preemptive policy against an itchy-trigger-fingered US. We might just get ourselves pre-destroyed first.
This guy appears to be an IT professional. I hope he's not working on some sort of doomsday device in his spare time.
Posted by: Miss Authoritiva at December 6, 2004 12:32 AM
As I have close friends who live in one of those cities, I can't even work it up to be vaguely amused.
Posted by: owlmother at December 6, 2004 10:23 AMCan't we just let Mutually Assured Destruction go??
Posted by: chutney at December 6, 2004 05:58 PM"Call me Frances and you die. Touch my stuff and you die. If any of you homos touch me, you die."
"Lighten up, Frances."
Posted by: Tripp at December 7, 2004 11:00 AMStrange, I get the feeling that I should be reading Ed Anger right now.
Posted by: KJ at December 7, 2004 11:48 AMYou need to, okay, ought to post your opinion on war. Is it ever acceptable or just? Is it ever okay to use force or violence to . . . There are some Christians who are not only considered kooks (sp?) for their faith by those outside the faith, but considered kooks for their positions against war. They do not equate pacifism with non-action or just standing there waiting to be killed, but allow for non-violent direct action. They point to the crucifixion as example of acceptance of a fate brought on by social positions that radically stood against oppression. They point to MLK as a modern day example of bringing major social change despite an unwillingness to achieve their goals by any means necessary.
And of course, I too think this guy you quote is a moron, but thought you should write on this topic more.
I love it. If there's a better way to drop the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal into the hands of of a few dozen anti-Muslim extremists, I can't think of it right now.
Posted by: Aaron at December 7, 2004 07:06 PMI once read WND to "get some balance" in the news and commentary that I read. However, every day they predicted Armageddon (and blamed it on liberals) and used far too many exclamation points. It was almost like reading persecution literature. Before you read their site, consider the cost of the blood pressure medication you'll have to take as a result. Combined with smoking, WND is a sure means to a heart attack or stroke.
No, I don't read it anymore and I don't smoke anymore. My BP has gone down to 116/79 (from 140/90).
Posted by: John Johnson at December 8, 2004 09:08 AMJimmy,
I can come up with hypothetical conflicts and past historical instances where war is/was plainly the only reasonable option left. Pacifism is a fine moral philosophy, but it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As a strategy, it only works in certain situations. If India was part of the Nazi Empire instead of the British Empire, we might never have heard of Gandhi, because he'd have just been shot. The Janjaweed militia would love to see Sudanese Christians adopt pacifism. Much easier to kill pacifists, y'know.
So, pacifism's efficacy really depends upon the enemy you are facing. Anyhow, I believe that war can be justified, yes. I also think that the vast majority of our military actions over the past 50 years have been utterly gratuitous and generally counter-productive. It's easy to mock the anti-war crowd, but they happen to be right about 95% of the time and that's no shabby record.
What I never favor is expeditionary war, which is just about the only damn kind we ever wage. I'd like to see the Department of Defense actually used for defense instead of offense. We have evolved into an imperial power that periodically wages air wars on poor countries without air defenses. Mostly for show, at that (does anybody really believe that the US gave a good goddamn who ran Kuwait, Inc.?), to hide the fact that we increasingly are bereft of any real economic power. Case in point: after all the talk of punishing France, Germany, Russia, and Canada for not signing on to the Iraq invasion, what do we really have to bring to bear on any of them? Nothing.
I agree that Mr. Atkins is a total moron, but unfortunately I suspect that he represents a much larger constituency of American thought than any of us would like to believe. They don't see the underlying malevolent logic, because they don't view Muslims as real people. For all the bullshit sandwiches many American swallowed about "freeing the Iraqi people" and so forth, the truth is that many of them hate Arabs from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed.
Posted by: apostropher at December 8, 2004 12:10 PMI agree with you whole-heartedly about US agression being 95% of the time imperialistic.
Pacifism in Germany did take place, but as I've said, non-violent direct action isn't the same thing as lining up with everyone to be shot. Pacifism can and has gotten people killed, and yet for those who are pacifist for faith reasons, they point to their hope that (though I got my ass shot deader than a door knob), my death was not in vain to the extent that peace ultimately was won (and yes, they go to their death believing in this eventual peace despite the current evidence against it.) In some cases, the survivors can say, yes, these martyrs' deaths did have some overarching social impact that was partially responsible for the cessation of the violence. That's a faith perspective if there ever was one. Does MLK fall into that category? Some would say so. Thanks for your comments
Posted by: Jimmy at December 8, 2004 05:52 PM"Hold our breath 'til we turn gay?" Did you mean "grey?" :-)
I don't know that there's any evidence that anoxia engenders same-sex attractions. There does, however, seem to be some sort of an inverse causative relationship between homosexuality and poppers. I mean, *I* don't really get it, but there it is.
PS: When all you crazy straight people get done bombing places, please try to leave South Beach, the Castro, and the Village intact. Dupont Circle I could live without. Thanks in advance!
Posted by: Scott Henley at December 9, 2004 08:51 AMNo, they have to save DuPont Circle - not for the cruising, but for Kramerbooks & Afterwords. It's yum.
And unless I'm wildly mistaken, "hold our breath 'til we turn gay" is a Kids In The Hall allusion. A kid says that to his mother when she won't let him keep the stray businessman he brought home on the way back from school.
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at December 9, 2004 04:13 PMKids In The Hall allusion
Two points awarded.
Posted by: apostropher at December 11, 2004 04:51 PMWow, I'd hate to share a fence with this guy. Can you imagine if you lost a lawn dart on his side?
Posted by: Rob at December 13, 2004 04:45 AMit is certainly awful poem because america is responsible of them why don't you help them I want you to help them because you think yourself the most powerful country:)
Posted by: tomy at May 6, 2005 10:19 AM