Destroy the Holy Land - Bring Peace

Destroy The Holy Land

Is this post going to be offensive? Probably. Will I regret posting it later? Who knows. But I'll tell you one thing... on paper, sure looks like a nice solution.

Christ, Moses, Islamic Prophet Muhammad, gave a message of peace.

Now look at us. Forgot about who started it for a moment (even though we all know who started it), look at what we're doing. We're fighting, killing each other and corrupting our politics over what?

Yes, yes, some people call it The Holy Land, but what is it? I'll tell ya, land. We're fighting over, dirt, some scattered rocks and boulders... a few foothills, and some old historical sites. That's it. That's why millions of people in Gaza are dying while Israelis take trips to go sign the missiles that kill them.

It's all over fucking dirt and sand.

 That's all the Holy Land is... just a bunch of fucking dirt and sand. That's it. Oh, right, how insensitive of me; It's a bunch of fucking dirt and sand that's been there for a long time. Really, who gives a fuck?

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, do you think He intended for us to revere the spot in Jerusalem where we think He might have been born, even more than any of His Teachings?

Do you think Jesus' message was to defend the exact spots of land that he stood on, by building a giant fucking nuclear warhead to keep out all the non-Christians? Was that His message?

I'm tired of 6 BILLION dollars of our fucking tax money going to defend a bunch of wealthy sick-o's in the middle east who are one some religious ego trip and think they gotta be on the same spot of dirt they think Moses might have wondered on. Who gives a fuck where Moses lived? Or where he parted the red sea. Did he even? I don't fucking care! Because I'll tell you one thing, I don't think Moses was thinking, 'Oh, better mark this spot on a map, so that 2,500 years from now some rich Europeans can come and kill off all the Arabs that live here'. I'm sure Moses would be just as proud to find a shrine for him, protected by the KKK as he is to see his land being courageously defended by Israeli soldiers who aren't afraid to shoot at unarmed pregnant Palestinian women.

Look, what do you do when you got 2 kids, fighting over a toy, one kid says,

"I got it!"

"No, it's mine, give it back."

"I had it first!"

What do you do? Do you pick sides and say, 'Oh, I gonna side with little Billy here.' No! Kids are fucking annoying. When 2 kids fight, you don't join in, you tell to shut the fuck up!

So SHUT THE FUCK UP! I don't give a fuck, if Jesus was born there. I don't give a FUCK if you think that's where Moses lead your people. You're NOT getting my tax dollars, so you can go on some Holy endeavor.

Look, as a Christian, I believe those sites are Holy too. But I also know what Jesus taught. And the Bible doesn't say, Jesus took a stick and marked out where we should install our perimeter defenses (courtesy of US taxpayer), and here is where the holy missile base should be (again, US tax payer)...etc. Fuck it. The Holy Land is already desecrated by all the fighting that's going on there.

So back to the two fighting kids. They won't shut up, they're fucking annoying, and the toy is fucking expensive on, and you know they're going to break it. What do you do? You take it away!

If you can't stop fighting over the Holy Land, if you can't share it, then don't fucking live there!

And that's not a suggestion.

Fuck, I think we should pull our Military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and move them straight into the Holy Land. Then evacuate it! Everybody out! Jerusalem - empty, no people, notta. Everyone, go live somewhere else, move to some other country, can't stay here.

Then, when it's totally empty, and devoid of all residents. We fire bomb it. Fucking burn that whole fucking city to the ground. I don't care about all the historical Churches or whatever. If we can't share it peacefully, then NOBODY can have it.

And you know what I think we should do then? Convert it into a wasteland. Imagine, the world's dump. We would pay all the people who lived there (used to) a $HIT load of money, to use that whole land, as the world's dump. Nuclear waste, garbage, decommissioned junk, whatever, Jerusalem is the perfect place for it.

And that's the solution folks.

FIREBOMB THE HOLY LAND!

Not, 'take back the Holy Land'. Not, kick out all the non-believers. No. Just fucking Firebomb it. Would that desecrate the place of Jesus' birth? Maybe, but only about as much as all the racism and fascism that's going on there right now. The Holy Land is already desecrated. It's a land of death, of children signing missiles, or terrorism, of racism, of prejudice.

And the sooner we wipe the Holy Land off the face of the earth, the better, and the sooner we'll have peace. You want the path to peace? That's it. We can't share it. Israel won't share with Palestine, and I'm sure the reverse would be true if Palestine had any of the Holy Land left under it's control. So fuck it. Nobody gets the Holy Land.

When there is no more Holy Land, there will be no more Palestine and no more Israel. Instead it will be the fucking world dump. And all the people who go there can tour the world's largest assortment of junk that all the nations didn't have room to store. And we do need a place to store our nuclear waste, btw.

I'm tired of giant Pro-Israel lobbies buy up our politicians. I'm tired of angry mobs of 'christians' talking about how they're not giving a damn penny to our 'socialist' public schools, but suddenly when Israel thinks that Iran may or may not develop a nuclear mission in 60 months (5 years), the pocket books go flying open. What happened conservative America, I thought the government took all your money? Now you're telling me you got like, $100, or $400 in your pocket to give to a foreign country's military? Oh fuck that shit! Ever heard of the USS Liberty? Of course not.

If keeping the Holy Land around, means more of this,

Then leave a pacifist like me the fuck out of it.

Fight your own damn war.

Kick everyone out of the Holy Land. Leave the whole fucking dirt wad, deserted. Then, FIREBOMB IT! Or Nuke it from orbit, whichever. Just destroy it already so we can stop all the racism, the Islamophobia, and all the killing.

Zionists will stop fighting their wars and rampaging across our politics once we take away what they have to fight for. If that land is reduced to a nuclear wasteland they'll have nothing left to defend, nothing to lobby for, unless they want to start a new Israel up the Antarctic somewhere, in which case, have at it! It's a few miles of from where Moses found himself but whatever.

Now, if some religious psycho, wants to go dig through all that garbage and go live down by the nuclear waste, because he thinks that, 2,000 years ago, his uncle Larry lived there, or because his family has been there for generations; let 'em. But, document them on film when they do go, because that's the closest thing to insanity that you'll ever see.

Dumb war

Obama opposes, "dumb war" but also fights one

By Stanly Kutler

Obama should recall what he said in 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.” Our diminished capacities and resources make such endeavors problematic. We cannot ignore present realities and forget the past.

The American Empire is alive and well and as expansive as ever. We have established more than 700 military bases across the world, largely encircling the peripheries of Russia and China, which are now central to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

The Cold War in the aftermath of World War II drove the expansion as we searched for security—and markets, to be sure.

Perhaps we now are the largest imperial power the world ever has known. Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan trivializes the once-massive naval and air facility at Cam Ranh Bay during the Vietnam War, and we have developed “permanent” mega-bases in Iraq. We engage in denial, and euphemisms abound.

Stumping for the colonial takeover of the Philippines in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, so fashionable today, insisted that “there is not an imperialist in the country... Expansion? Yes. ... Expansion has been the law of our national growth.”

Chalmers Johnson reminds us of Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s liberal “idealist imperialism,” which would make the world safe for democracy. Deceit comes from the top.

Johnson cites neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer, who, as we embarked on the Afghanistan war, touted the British model and remarked that “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.”

Oh? Then why did the British with their jodhpurs and pith helmets fail in Afghanistan, as did the Russians, whether Cossacks with swords or Soviets with missiles?

Why did the British ignominiously retreat from their empire, and why did the Soviets tuck tail and leave Afghanistan in the 1980s? Rather pathetic models, and hardly to be emulated, one would think.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently visited the Republic of Georgia, which Russia had invaded in 2008 in helping establish independence for two breakaway provinces. George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice expressed outrage and sympathy for the Georgians—who sit astride the oil-rich Caucasus.

We are still at it, now in a “bipartisan” manner, pushing for, or appearing to push for, NATO membership for Georgia. When asked to specify why Georgia was so important for the United States, Clinton responded with glittering generalities of support—no blank check here, only evasion.

Clinton ardently courted an informal alliance. She reiterated the U.S. “commitment” to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Further, she said that the U.S. “does not recognize spheres of influence”—meaning Russian.

In one sense, the statement reflected our foreign policy since 1945, while we of course maintained and expanded our own spheres of influence. The Monroe Doctrine since the 19th century offers ample evidence, and then add the Truman Doctrine, NATO and the now-forgotten CENTO and SEATO.

The Soviet Union is history, but Russia has maintained its “spheres of influence.”

After the collapse of communism, Georgia and Russia renewed their economic ties, but there were tensions over the country’s European ambitions.

Some political groups wanted to join NATO. There was the discord over Georgian involvement with Chechen rebels Russia was less than thrilled with the Georgian government. The 2008 "invasion" underlined Moscow’s determination to maintain its own “sphere of influence.”

The Obama administration is thoroughly committed to defense of the empire it inherited; there is no or little retreat from the mindless expansion of American ambition.

Teddy Roosevelt would be proud. Why are supporters of Barack Obama dismayed and shocked by his Afghanistan course, when, after all, in his 2008 campaign he promised nothing less?

In his first presidential campaign debate with John McCain, Obama said: “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. … So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”

Democrats and liberals so fear the war-loving right that they believe they must have their own adventures. But this is not 1961, when President John F. Kennedy told an enthralled nation that we “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” And thus he brought the Vietnam quagmire.

There are limits to our power; sadly, presidential candidates will not utter that truth, whatever painful adventures we have had. Obama might remember what he said in 2002:

“I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”

Our diminished capacities and resources make such endeavors problematic. We cannot ignore present realities and forget the past.

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele recently attacked the Obama administration’s Afghanistan war efforts in a thoughtful statement.

Typically, the media jumped on him—NPR called it his “gaffe”—and his speech contained the media’s Sound Bite of the Week: “a war of Obama’s choosing.”

Steele’s remarks, which include a larger criticism of the war, are worth reading in full. [Editor’s note: Click here to see a transcript of Steele’s comment.]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Republican ever-ready war hawks assailed Steele, who has no visible supporters within his party, let alone among Democrats. (He is unlikely to lose his position because of this flap; his presence is useful electorally.)

William Kristol invoked our Eleventh Commandment that political differences over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge (has he heard of the Internet?)—the usual ploy to thwart debate. Kristol called Steele’s remarks an “affront” to the Republican Party and to our “commitment to our soldiers.”

Sen. McCain and his cohorts metaphorically grabbed the microphone and assailed Steele because he undermined and assaulted the basic imperial behavior of the past six decades.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, McCain’s faithful sidekick, said, “This is not President Obama’s war, this is America’s war.” But Steele may have been playing good politics. The Afghanistan war is increasingly unpopular, even though for now his critique has not gained traction.

Sadly, there is little debate over the war in Afghanistan, as there is little about foreign policy generally.

Steele confronted a longstanding consensus that supports our imperial expansion—again, supported by real and imagined security interests, magnified by economic considerations, not least of which is the health of our domestic “defense industry” enterprise.

Our foreign policy course hardly arouses Congress, which has not raised any serious discussion since the Senate ratified the NATO treaty in 1949, or when Congress organized to cut off funding for the Vietnam conflict.

The Senate Armed Services Committee fulfilled McCain’s prediction that Gen. David Petraeus would be quickly and unanimously confirmed as military commander in Afghanistan. Sen. Robert Byrd’s death diminished the opposition, leaving few in the Senate with the will or courage to challenge U.S. policy in that war.

As Petraeus took command of the “international” forces in Afghanistan, he declared that “we are in this to win.” Obama’s promise to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011 may be politely ignored.

We can be sure the general did not undertake this command to dismantle an American army. President Obama may look back nostalgically on the simplicity of sacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal.